Mutah in Islam

[Debater]

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.

<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_707899-->

[Debater]

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

(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.<!--QuoteEnd-->

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

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

Also, please avoid using the word 'adultery'. The Prophet would never order his companions to commit adultery. <!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.

<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_712584--><!-- THE POST -->

[Debater]

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. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_712598-->
<!-- THE POST --><!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_712589-->
<!-- THE POST -->

[Debater]

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

<!--QuoteEEnd-->

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


<!--QuoteEBegin-->

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??<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->

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.
<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_712858--><!-- THE POST -->

[Debater]

.InshAllah.@May 13 2005, 08:17 PM

''AlHakm came to Imam Ali <!--emo&(as)--><!--endemo--> 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.
<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_714759-->
<!-- THE POST -->

[Debater]

(zainabia @ May 16 2005, 02:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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: ]

<!--QuoteEnd-->
<!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.

<!--QuoteEEnd-->

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.

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

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.

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

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.<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
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"?<!--QuoteEnd-->

[i]<!--QuoteEEnd-->
I asked the same question.
In fact you didn't bring a good witness in favour of mut'ah.

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

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

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

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

<!--QuoteEBegin-->

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.<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything stops at the witness of a single person against whom is the whole Ummah.

- Thirdly, 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?<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.<!--QuoteEnd-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->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]

(.InshAllah. @ May 14 2005, 06:06 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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, and whoever disobeys me, he disobeys Allah ; and whoever obeys Ali he obeys me, and whoever disobeys Ali, he disobeys me.'' vol 3, pg 121

And on top of that so does Dhahabi in his Talkhees ! Thats right this exact hadith - not just the narrator but ALL of it including the chain. This means Imam Ali is an authority and his opinion counts. So when he tells you that the verse of Mut3a hasnt been abrogated and it was Umar that made it illegal then you have to belive him and follow what he says, so tough luck.<!--emo&:P--><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-.InshAllah.+May 17 2005, 05:07 PM-->

(.InshAllah. @ May 17 2005, 05:07 PM)
<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why are you so quick to accuse the shia of making it up? It isnt a lie and I did claim it in post #182 where I told you that Dhahabi said the hadith was sahih.

..AlDahabi doesnt seem to believe in this 'principle'. Neither does abu Hatim, Yahya ibn Ma'ain, AlNisa'i...

..Ibn Hajar Asqalani when talking about one of the narrators of sahih bukari said,
'He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in Bukhari'.

..Are you more knowledgeable than AlDhahabi and ibn Hajar?

<!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hakim in the eyes of Dhahabi

His name is Muhammad in ‘Abdullah Al-Dhabbi An-Nisa-Buri Al-Hakim. He is hafiz-al-hadith, author of many books.

But in his Mustadrak he declares many unreliable narrations as sahih. Rather he keeps doing it on and off. Though I don’t know if this wasn’t in Hakim’s knowledge or he remained ignorant because of his carelessness. And if he has done it deliberately then he has been very dishonest. Then in this case, Hakim is famous as a shia, though he doesn’t slander Abu Bakr and Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhu.

Even that Ibn Tahir says: I inquired Abu Isma’il ‘Abdullah Al-Ansari about Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Hakim, he replied, ‘Though he is imam in hadith but he is a Rafidhi Khabeeth’.

Dhabah writes: ‘Allah Ta’ala likes justice, he is not Rafidhi but definitely is a shia.
One of his malicious narrations is that Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam was born circumcised.
Likewise this narration that ‘Ali is Wasi.
Anyways personally he is truthful and all have agreed on his knowledge of hadith.

(Meezan, volume 3, page 608)

Khatib Baghdadi states that Hakim is Rafidhi, he has narrated Hadith of Tayr in Al-Mustadrak.

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


As for acceptance of a shia as a witness, we have been commanded by Allah to confirm the news which a Fasiq brings. According to Ahlus Sunnah, those who slander Sahabah ridhwanullahe alayhim ajma'een are Fasiq, so we must confirm the news/hadith they bring.
This is the Law of Common Sense.

[Bashir]

Brother Debater wrote:

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.

Actually I haven't seen or followed this debate on that site. However, I did skim through your pasted postings of the exchanges going on there. Thank you for sharing them with us.

First of all, it is clear that something hasn't really been understood about my posts or is being ignored. I am not trying to prove to anyone that mut'a is permissible. I am not trying to prove to anyone that believing in the impermissibility of mut'a is against Islam. For those who are interested in making such points are discussing it already on the other discussions that Debater shared.

I am calling for mutual respect. I am proving to you, without doubt, that belief in the permissibility of mut'a, long after 'Umar had passed away, long after Jabir and Ibn 'Abbas had passed away, was existing in important Sunni scholars, parrticularly the Makkan fuqaha'. Once this point is understood, the taunts and sleaze and the emotive hocus pocus can go away, for if it doesn't it goes a long way back to the sources of people like Imam Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

That said, and after looking through your posts, I only noticed one post that comes close to what I have been discussing here. The rest is really irrelevant considering my earlier reiteration. So I will quote from there:

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. .... 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.

I would like to repeat a quotation I had mentioned earlier.

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.

Let's assume for the moment that all the Companions who were practising mut'a stopped during Umar's reign and were clear from that point onwards that it was impermissible.

What about the tabi'oon and Makkan fuqaha ? Did they not know better? They were closer to the knowledge of the traditions and they (i.e. the successors) had access to real live Companions who they could ask questions from? And yet we find out that not only did they believe in mut'a, but in the case of Ibn Jurayj, the trustworthy source of Imams Bukhari and Muslim, he himself contracted mut'a with 90 women!

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.

You have yourself quoted this book by al-Dhahabi in a previous post and so can easily confirm the attribution.

Mutual respect, and an end to the sleazy comments. That's all I ask.

[Debater]

I am calling for mutual respect. I am proving to you, without doubt, that belief in the permissibility of mut'a, long after 'Umar had passed away, long after Jabir and Ibn 'Abbas had passed away, was existing in important Sunni scholars, parrticularly the Makkan fuqaha'. Once this point is understood, the taunts and sleaze and the emotive hocus pocus can go away, for if it doesn't it goes a long way back to the sources of people like Imam Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

I try my best to be polite and not to hurt anyone's religious sentiments and you can see my pastings from shiachat I have only been harsh when I heard the comments of disrespect from shias towards Companions of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, especially our Ameer 'Umar Farooq-e-Azam radhiyAllahu 'anhu and Ahlus Sunnah in general when they give us the title of Nasibi (when we go against them).

Anyways, I have explained on many occasions that we have 3 standards to accept or reject anything as Islam.

1. Quran
2. Sunnah (from reliable source, in accordance with Quran)
3. Ijma' or Consensus of Ummah (in accordance with Quran and Sunnah)

In my thread http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54711
I have tried my best to prove that mut'ah is Haraam from Quran.

From authentic Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, it is proven (at least I will inshaAllah prove in this thread) that Mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam (please note my words, I am claiming mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam).

The last criterion left is Agreement/Consensus of Ummah which is crystal clear to everyone that we Ahlus Sunnah irrespective of different groups, consider Mut'ah Haraam and its punishment is same as of Adultery.

Now, if Makkan fuqaha do mut'ah or Madani fuqaha, the question is if they can change our deen/religion?
Absolutely not.
First of all, we must know that the origin of mut'ah is from Iran/Persia where Majoos and follower of Mani religion had sex even with their mothers and sisters, sodomy/gay relationship had also its roots in Iran. I will soon inshaAllah start a thread on this topic.
As for Taawoos, Sa'eed bin Jubair, 'Ataa', I have intended to get you by surprise:
These people especially Taawoos and Sa'id bin Jubair were from Kufah (shias) and Kufah was since the beginning the centre of Rebels and Mischiefs. People of Kufah lived in the guise of Taba'in and Taba-Taba'in (taqiyyah). Sa'id bin Jubayr was amongst the rebels who fought against Hajjaj bin Yousuf, but when Hajjaj defeated them, Sa'id ran away to Makkah, after sometime the waali of Makkah, Khalid bin 'Abdullah Al-Qasri caught him and send him to Hajjaj where Hajjaj sentenced him to death because of his part in shia-rebellion against the Khalifah.
Sa'id bin Jubayr was the manumitted slave of Bani Asad who had a community in Kufah where 99% were shias.
Taawoos was the slave of Bahayr bin Resaan who was manumitted in the slavery of Hamdaanis. Before manumission he was in Kufah.
So two of them are from Kufah and about 'Ataa, I will try to find an account over him soon inshaAllah.

Now you can understand, why they supported mut'ah.

WAllahu A'lam Bissawab

[Debater]

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."

I didn't find any narration in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that Hadhrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Abu Sa'id Khudri, Hadhrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah radhiyAllahu 'anhum regarded mut'ah Halaal or adovated mut'ah at least after the consensus of Ummah which appeared at the time of Saiyidina 'Umar bin Al-Khattab radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
If there is not a single report existed to this effect, why would we accept a story from anyone (Ibn Hazm or anyone else) without any sanad and evidence.
But if you think you can find an authentic narration in favour of the above claims, then please forward that to us.

As for Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu, you won't find a single narration where he has said that mut'ah is halaal. There is not a single occassion/report where Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas issued a verdict over permissibility of mut'ah.
One narration which I read in Bukhari or Muslim claims that he permitted mut'ah conditionally that is when the women are scarce. And such a verdict is closer to Ahlus Sunnah's point of view or the shia-view-of-mut'ah?

..but in the case of Ibn Jurayj, the trustworthy source of Imams Bukhari and Muslim, he himself contracted mut'a with 90 women!

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."

I will find out inshaAllah, if Ibn Jurayj is the same sort of Makkan Faqih as Sa'id Ibn Jubayr was.
Even if he was from Ahlus Sunnah, he is not an authority in Islam, i.e to say he is not our Prophet, Ulul Amr or an Infallible Imam.

[Bashir]

Debater wrote:

From authentic Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, it is proven (at least I will inshaAllah prove in this thread) that Mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam (please note my words, I am claiming mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam).

I believe this claim, at best, represents a minority view amongst the ahl as-sunnah. I always understood that most Sunnis believe mut'a was allowed during the lifetime of the Prophet (s), at least for a certain period of time, before being banned. However, it is interesting to hear your view and thanks for sharing it.

The last criterion left is Agreement/Consensus of Ummah which is crystal clear to everyone that we Ahlus Sunnah irrespective of different groups, consider Mut'ah Haraam and its punishment is same as of Adultery.

This is consistent with your previous assertion. If mut'a has never ever been allowed and, as you mentioned, is a spill-over from other unIslamic belief systems that infiltrated the Islamic ummah, then it does make sense to believe that the perpetrators should be punished as adulterers. It also then sounds logical to condemn people who go around saying that such a dire sexual travesty as mut'a can be allowed.

The "if", needless to say, is pivotal. But let's continue.

Now, if Makkan fuqaha do mut'ah or Madani fuqaha, the question is if they can change our deen/religion? Absolutely not.

No they don't. On the contrary, and according to your logic, they are adulterers who deserve the hadd. This is clear from what has been stated above.

As for Taawoos, Sa'eed bin Jubair, 'Ataa', I have intended to get you by surprise

Thank you, I like to be surprised !

Sa'id bin Jubayr was amongst the rebels who fought against Hajjaj bin Yousuf, but when Hajjaj defeated them, Sa'id ran away to Makkah, after sometime the waali of Makkah, Khalid bin 'Abdullah Al-Qasri caught him and send him to Hajjaj where Hajjaj sentenced him to death because of his part in shia-rebellion against the Khalifah. Sa'id bin Jubayr was the manumitted slave of Bani Asad who had a community in Kufah where 99% were shias.

Most students of Islamic history and hadith sciences know that very little of the rich biographical material exists in English. Many an outstanding scholar does not have any or much mention in the English corpus and one has to refer to books of rijaal in Arabic to find out their details. It is therefore especially worthy of note how much can be found simply on the Internet, on Sunni websites, regarding the Makkan scholars and tabi'oon mentioned by me who are proponents of mut'a and, at least in the case of Ibn Jurayj, its practitioners! One can always go to specialist books but I decided to quote from the websites to make it easily verifiable for everyone.

Let's start.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sa'eed bin Jubayr
Died in 94 or 95 hijra
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Summary: 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

Sa'id bin Jubayr(rh) confronts Hajjaj
http://www.lutonmuslims.co.uk/saidbinjubayr.htm
Quote:: "Al Hajjâj kept pursuing the noble scholar Sa`îd bin Jubayr for eight years or more until he eventually found him. Saeed bin Jubayr was a scholar known for his scrupulous piety and a man of great knowledge and action who was waging jihâd to raise the flag of La ilaha ill Allâh the uppermost."

Debate Between Al-Hajjaaj and Sa`eed bin Jubayr
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=511

Quote:: "Al-Hajjaaj said about himself: "No night has passed except that I saw myself swimming in blood and no night has passed except that I saw as if al Qiyamah took place and that Allah took me to account and that I was killed for whoever I killed with one killing, except Sa`eed bin Jubayr - Allah punished me for killing him with seventy killings."

Kitaab At-Tawheed
Shaikh Imam Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamen...1-chap-06.html

Quote:: "In the first narration, Sa'eed Ibn Jubair (ra ) informs us that whoever removed an amulet or talisman from a person will have a reward equivalent to the one who freed a slave, because he would by doing so, free that person from the Fire, and from following vain desires and Shirk."

Debater wrote:

Taawoos was the slave of Bahayr bin Resaan who was manumitted in the slavery of Hamdaanis. Before manumission he was in Kufah.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tawoos ibn Kaysaan
Died in 106 hijra
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Summary: 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

How did the Prophet choose people for posts?
http://www.islamanswers.net/moreAbout/leadership.htm

Quote:: ".... Each of them proved a guide and teacher for womanhood, and, besides, even the leading figures in the generations following the Companions such as Masruq, Tawus ibn Kaysan and Ata’ ibn Rabah benefited considerably from them."

Debater wrote:

So two of them are from Kufah and about 'Ataa, I will try to find an account over him soon inshaAllah.

Good luck ! See him mentioned just above, and also below.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ataa bin Abi Rabaah
Died in 114 or 115 hijra
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Summary: 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

Status of the Arabs in Islam
Dr. G. F. Haddad
http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/status_of_arabs.htm

Quote:: "This is confirmed by the narration adduced by Ibn al-Salah in his Muqaddima on the Hadith sciences...... "...Do you know anything about the foremost Ulema in the world?" - "Yes, Commander of the Believers." - "Who is the Faqihh of Ahl al-Madina?" - "Nafi` the Mawla of Ibn `Umar [most likely a Persian according to al-Dhahabi]." - "Was he a Mawla or an Arab?" - "A Mawla." - "Then who is the Faqihh of Ahl Makka?" - "`Ata' ibn Abi Rabah." - "Was he a Mawla or an Arab?" - "No! A Mawla." "

The Life of Imam Abu Hanifah Nu'man ibn Thabit, 80-150 A.H. by Maida Malik
http://www.sunnah.org/publication/kh...bu_hanifah.htm

Quote:: "Of these was `Ata bin Rabah's (rh) school. `Ata was a famous Tabi'i who had associated with most of the Companions (ra) and acquired from this association a status of authority. He himself claimed to have met two hundred men who had associated with the Noble Prophet (saw). The leading Companions (ra) all acknowledged his learning. Abdullah ibn `Umar (ra), son of the Caliph `Umar (ra) often used to say:"Why do people come to me when `Ata ibn Abi Rabah is there for them to go to?""

Debater wrote:

I will find out inshaAllah, if Ibn Jurayj is the same sort of Makkan Faqih as Sa'id Ibn Jubayr was. Even if he was from Ahlus Sunnah, he is not an authority in Islam....

More good luck to you !

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ibn Jurayj
Died in 150 hijra
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Summary: '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

Those Who are Imitated in Islam (al-muqalladûn fî al-Islâm)
http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/usul/muqalladoon.htm
This essay mentions generations of high ranking Sunni scholars including Ibn Jurayj and Sa'eed bin Jubair

Saheeh Bukhari online - Chapter on the Mukatab
http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/P...0002P0053.aspx

Quote: "Ibn Jurayj said, "I said to 'Ata', 'Is it mandatory ...."

Not an authority in Islam? I think not.

[Bashir]

Debater wrote:

I didn't find any narration in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that Hadhrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Abu Sa'id Khudri, Hadhrat Jabir bin 'Abdullah radhiyAllahu 'anhum regarded mut'ah Halaal or adovated mut'ah at least after the consensus of Ummah which appeared at the time of Saiyidina 'Umar bin Al-Khattab radhiyAllahu 'anhu.

Very interesting statement and worth stopping and thinking about.

What would your response be to a statement like this one: "I did not find any narration in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim regarding the mihna of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the time of al-Ma'moon".

If there is not a single report existed to this effect, why would we accept a story from anyone (Ibn Hazm or anyone else) without any sanad and evidence.

Please explain what evidence would meet your exacting standards?

As for Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu, you won't find a single narration where he has said that mut'ah is halaal. There is not a single occassion/report where Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas issued a verdict over permissibility of mut'ah.

What if there is one? What would be your criteria for accepting it as valid?

[Debater]

Debater wrote:

From authentic Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, it is proven (at least I will inshaAllah prove in this thread) that Mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam (please note my words, I am claiming mut'ah has never been Halaal in Islam).

I believe this claim, at best, represents a minority view amongst the ahl as-sunnah. I always understood that most Sunnis believe mut'a was allowed during the lifetime of the Prophet (s), at least for a certain period of time, before being banned. However, it is interesting to hear your view and thanks for sharing it.

Sorry brother, you cannot prove your point by mot Sunnis, you have to use an argument.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

The last criterion left is Agreement/Consensus of Ummah which is crystal clear to everyone that we Ahlus Sunnah irrespective of different groups, consider Mut'ah Haraam and its punishment is same as of Adultery.

This is consistent with your previous assertion. If mut'a has never ever been allowed and, as you mentioned, is a spill-over from other unIslamic belief systems that infiltrated the Islamic ummah, then it does make sense to believe that the perpetrators should be punished as adulterers. It also then sounds logical to condemn people who go around saying that such a dire sexual travesty as mut'a can be allowed.

<o></o>
The point is that mut’ah is not the part of Islam as sharaab (wine) is not the part of Islam. Wine was allowed in the beginning of Islam, mut’ah was not allowed in the beginning of Islam but it was permitted occasionally by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam (2 times or so). This permission by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam was equivalent to a Religious Verdict which was not for everyone but only for those who were in the stress of necessity. And mut’ah was allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam only during military expeditions and it was permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam during only 2 or so military expeditions.<o></o>

This is exactly as a scholar might give a verdict to a Muslim that he could masterbate, according to his own conditions. Or some scholars issue a verdict to some people living in a certain conditions to suicide attack the occupying forces. But it doesn’t mean that masturbation of suicide becomes Halaal.<o></o>

For the permissibility of mut’ah we need the following:<o></o>

1. a military expedition
2. our Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu alayhe wasallam<o></o>
3. exactly the same conditions as were in those 2 (or so) battles in which Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam allowed mut’ah<o></o>
4. sanction of mut’ah by Caliphs of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam <o></o>
5. Sunnah of Rasoolullah sallAllahu alayhe wasallam that mut’ah is Halaal for everyone in any situation<o></o>
6. Quranic evidence<o></o>

And yes, if Islamic Caliphate system is adopted by Muslim Ummah, shias would be stoned to death who commit mut’ah as prescribed by the shari’ah.<o></o>

Now, if Makkan fuqaha do mut'ah or Madani fuqaha, the question is if they can change our deen/religion? Absolutely not.

No they don't. On the contrary, and according to your logic, they are adulterers who deserve the hadd. This is clear from what has been stated above.

<o></o>

If they were caught by the Caliph of time, I am sure they would be punished provided they committed mut’ah.<o></o>
It’s wonderful that if some shia hides in Makkah because of the fear of Khalifah of Muslims, he becomes the Faqih of Makkah, only because he supports mut’ah. And strange that only these 3 people (ibn Jubayr, Tawoos and ‘Ataa) are fuqaha of Makkah and others in the Makkah were only their students, and why not, the people of Makkah were shias and they were the strong preachers of mut’ah.<o></o>

By the way, we should have more madhabs from these 3 fuqaha of Makkah, Sunnis then would have 7 or 5 schools of thought. And in this new school our sunnis would be able to do mut’ah and adultery would be vanished from earth as it is absent in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region><st1lace>Iran</st1lace></st1:country-region>.
<o></o>
Anyways, I believe you just wasted your energy and time in searching for these comments over these fuqaha of Makkah, as I already cleared that these 3 fuqaha of Makkah have no status in Islam that they could dictate our religion. They are from the group which is against the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma’ of Ummah.<o></o>

And I can’t understand why you discussed their autobiography. Are we discussing a chain of narration? I guess not. But we are discussing the actions of narrators of Sahihain who are shias, and they are not shias because they love Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but they are shias because of their love for mut’ah. Now what you think, they have narrated hadith so we accept their religion as well as their narration too? If I am not wrong Bukhari has accepted narrations from Kharijites as well, so you would love if we accept the religion of Kharijites?
<o></o>
And the comments over these fuqaha of Makkah are from some angels in Kufah? As I didn’t read whose comments are they about these infallible fuqaha of Makkah.
<o></o>

What would your response be to a statement like this one: "I did not find any narration in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim regarding the mihna of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the time of al-Ma'moon".

<o></o>


I didn’t expect this response from you, as I clarified even in my previous posts that I am rejecting mut’ah in the light of narrations from Sahihain first. And about Masnad Ahmed bin Hambal, I have proved that there is only and only a single chain for each narration of Masnad Ahmed and the chain is from the Bar of shias. Please don’t give me reference of Sunnis, that sunnis believe in this and sunnis believe in that, just prove me wrong, you are welcome to do that.<o></o>

Please explain what evidence would meet your exacting standards?

A Sahih Narration from reliable narrators who must not be shias as shias must lie emplying Taqiyyah in order to enjoy their mut’ah. And this is the principle of narration that if a narration is narrated by the people of innovation, the narration would be rejected provided this goes in favour of those innovators.<o></o>

As for Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu, you won't find a single narration where he has said that mut'ah is halaal. There is not a single occassion/report where Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas issued a verdict over permissibility of mut'ah.

What if there is one? What would be your criteria for accepting it as valid?

As above.<o></o>

[New Guy 007]

Marjan!!!...As-Salam-WaUlaikum...=)....thank you for an awsome post...i was waiting for anyone to say what u said...it was just soo simple..lol....yes, divorce is a last resort...therefore mutah is haram...lol...man, i still can't stop smiling..that was just great...checkmate! u got em...there's no way anyone can fight the counter u posted on mutah...haha...i'm not a very good muslim when it comes to acting out islam...but i sure do believe in it and feel great pride real fast when something good is done for islam....and u did good...thank you again....i knew that Allah (swt) had detested divorce but had just forgotten to use it against Mutah....but now if i ever get into a situation where mutah is being validated....ill have one heck of a counter...thank you, ur the best...=)

[Cupcake]

Is Muta (Temporary Marriage) Allowed in Islaam?

[The Strategist]

It is not upto the Ummah to decide what is halal or what is haram, according to their own understanding or misunderstanding of the religion. Mutah was never prohibitted by the Prophet (s). Which is why the sahaba practiced it even after the Prophet (s). Accounts by Sunni historians and reporters of hadith, including Bukhari confirm this.

[The Strategist]

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

No, it is not. It is governed by conditions for it to be halal.

[The Strategist]

Marjan!!!...As-Salam-WaUlaikum...=)....thank you for an awsome post...i was waiting for anyone to say what u said...it was just soo simple..lol....yes, divorce is a last resort...therefore mutah is haram...lol...man, i still can't stop smiling..that was just great...checkmate! u got em...there's no way anyone can fight the counter u posted on mutah...haha...i'm not a very good muslim when it comes to acting out islam...but i sure do believe in it and feel great pride real fast when something good is done for islam....and u did good...thank you again....i knew that Allah (swt) had detested divorce but had just forgotten to use it against Mutah....but now if i ever get into a situation where mutah is being validated....ill have one heck of a counter...thank you, ur the best...=)

In a nikah, the couple understands that the union is permanent. Ending it comes as a shock and a surprise to the other. While in mutah, the couple knows the exact duration of the union. When it ends, they have the option to extend it or renew it or get into a nikah. No one is hit by any unexpected shocks and disappointments as in a talak from a nikah. There is a huge difference between a talak and a mutah.

[The Strategist]

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

Mutah is not recommended for virgin girls. So, the above scenario isn't the ideal for a mutah. However, there are millions of single desperate women in the world right now who would do just about anyting to have a decent husband, even for one night. Just as there are single desperate men. The world over.

[The Strategist]

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?

The Quran has an ayat which sanctions mutah. Which is why the Shia do not go against the Quran and the Prophet (s) by forbidding what Allah (swt) and his Apostle (s) allowed as halal.

[The Strategist]

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.

Individual Shia girls or guys can believe what they want about mutah or whatever. That isn't going to change the religion of the Prophet (s). Mutah, like nikah remains valid as it ever was, till the Day of Judgement.

[The Strategist]

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.

A sensible and reasonable person has spoken.

[The Strategist]

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.

How do you understand what Islam stands for and what it doesn't? Does Islam stand for killing innocent Muslims on the streets of Baghdad or London? Does Islam stand for the prostitution that occurs in Arab cities from Cairo to Casablanca?

Whether Shia practice it or not, approve it or not, whatever the Prophet (s) allowed remains allowed, what he forbade remains forbidden. Muta is one of those things which were never forbidden by the Prophet (s).

So, let Muslims- Shia or Sunni- not reinvent the religion of Muhammad, upon whom be peace.

[Cupcake]

How many times your mommy did the Muta? Were you born under Muta, if not why not?

Is Muta (Temporary Marriage) Allowed in Islaam?

Christians are you Shias are same, they worship Jesus and you worship Ali (RA). Read the above article your sham grand Imam says that Muta was forbidden.

[Debater]

Following is the thread where I proved mut'ah Haraam, on shiachat.com:

source thread: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=54917


Here I would summarize my answers on the question of permissibility of Mut'ah.

The most important defense shias offer in favour of mut'ah is the following:

Posted by: Ya Aba 3abdillah May 1 2005, 11:15 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: ]

Sunni references:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v6, Hadith #43
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v2, p375, v6, p34

The above is the only reliable (because it is from Sahih Bukhari, though I haven't checked the sanad of this narration) evidence which could interpret the verse 4:24 as the verse of mut'ah, though at more than 25 places where the same word istamta'tum or its different versions (root meem-ta-'ayn) have been used, shias never accept them to refer to mut'ah.
Isn't it funny?
Nope, this is extra-funny.

Now I will examine this hadith:

1. It says the verse of mut'ah is in Quran

But 'Imaran bin Husayn radhiyAllahu 'anhu or the connected narrator(s) didn't tell us which verse exactly is the verse of mut'ah. May be they have forgotten about it. Whatever the reason, this narrations doesn't explain anything about which the verse of mut'ah is.
So shias are so unfortunate here as they can't use this narration of Bukhari to prove that the verse 4:24 refers to mut'ah.

2. so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle

In the translation of Doctor Muhsin we read:

so we performed it with Allah's Apostle

If this narration is really about mut'ah marriage then according to Doctor Muhsin's translation, Allah's Apostle also performed it whose we don't have any proof. So the best is to check what the exact wording is of this line, as shias translate this as

so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle

Most probably shias' translation is twisted because they are religiously liars.

3. and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died

If this narration is really referring to temporary marriage then this is opposing loads of narrations from Bukhari and Muslim both which claim that Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah and then prohibited it.
And on this ground, this hadith would be rejected, if it is really referring to temporary marriage, as according to the science of hadith, if a narration opposes well established and unanimously accepted narration(s), it would be rejected.

And if this narration is Sahih then it is never referring to temporary marriage, as it uses the term verse of mut'ah, it doesn't say the verse of mut'ah-an-nikah therefore it is certainly referring to Hajj Tamattu, as the translation of Doctor Muhsin claims:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

The Verse of Hajj-at-Tamatu was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested.

Witness of only One Sahabi against the Ijma' of Ummah (Sahabah)

If the narration in question would clearly refer to temporary marriage and its permissibility then it would simply be rejected because the witness of only One Sahabi can never be accepted against the Ijma' of Ummah (Sahabah) which includes thousands of pious slaves of Allah and devoted Companions of Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam which declares mut'ah as Haraam.

[Debater]

Why was mut'ah allowed occassionally?

In the stress of necessity, even those things can be utilised which are prohibited / impermissible (Haraam) under normal circumstances, e.g. in the stress of necessity one can eat cats, porks even dead humans (in a limit) in order to save one's life, so

eating cats, porks or (dead) humans is Halaal in Islam?

Exactly for the same reason, Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam allowed mut'ah for some people (not for everyone as I am going to prove inshaAllah) and this permission of mut'ah by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam is similar to the religious verdicts (fatwas) our scholars issue for individuals depending on their individual conditions.
For different individuals might be different verdicts (fatawa) depending on the conditions they are living with.

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 in the state of fun.

[Debater]

Was mut'ah allowed or commanded to do?

We always read that mut'ah was allowed and we don't read the mut'ah was commanded by Rasoolullah Sallahu 'Alayhe Wasallam to perform.

Was mut'ah allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam forever?

We never read that mut'ah was allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam forever, but for a certain period of time.

Was mut'ah allowed (temporarily) or it was made Halaal for everyone?

Mut'ah was allowed exactly as pork can be allowed under stress of necessity.

Was mut'ah allowed in normal conditions?

No, mut'ah was only allowed by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam in military expeditions.

Was mut'ah allowed in all military expeditions (Ghazwaat)?

No, only 2 or so.

Can mut'ah be allowed by anyone else other than Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam?

Since Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam didn't allow mut'ah in all military expeditions, no one can allow mut'ah in at least a military expedition, because Mut'ah is Haraam which was allowed by only Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam for some people only.
Those who want to enjoy mut'ah should ask permission of Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam which is impossible after the demise of Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam.

[Debater]

My answers to questions from a shia member on a forum (kr-hcy.com)

(Husayn @ Jul 14 2005, 05:24 AM)Let me make something clear:

The purpose of this thread was not to debate the legality of Mut'a today, rather to point out the contradictions of Sunnis attacking the act rather than attacking it's permissibility today.

By this you mean, mut'ah itself is not undesirable, but the only reason why Ahlus Sunnah oppose it is that it is deemed Haraam by them, then you are wrong.

Even the illegal sex with the girl friend is also not undesirable.
Every man has an attraction and he has a natural inclination to go for sex with any girl/woman.
The only thing which stops him is either his internal obstacle (consience or Fear of Allah or other factors) or external obstacle (presence of people around etc.).

Believe me, if men are allowed, they will have sex with a new girl daily, because that is not undesirable to them.

Drinking wine is also not undesirable, that is why so many people regardless of their religion drink it, becuase drinking it gives them soothing and pleasure.

The philosphy why Mut'ah is not Halaal in Islam is same as why the illegal sex with agreement of both partners is not Halaal in Islam.
The girl/boy-friend-relationship in the West is also a bit different from prostitution, as the girl offers herself to the boy with her consent, and they stay with each other as Wife and Husband and in most of the cases, they restrict themselves to each other for sex, and if one of them goes to another partner, the old relationship is most likely to break.

Exactly the same thing happens in Mut'ah. Both partners live with each other with an agreement for a certain period of time. The agreement to live with each other in mut'ah is like the agreement in girl/boy-relationship and the fixed time period in mut'ah is like the length of time in Adultery.
In any case, Mut'ah, boy/girl-relationship and Adultery, all are the ways to gratify the urge of sex only and in all these relationships, the man doesn't accept the responsibility to raise the family.

The act was allowed during the Prophet's time, and according to Ibn Abbas (do not ask me how on earth he can possibly have a different opinion than the Prophet -according to Sunnis) is still permissible under dire circumstances.

First of all this is a lie that mut'ah was allowed during the Prophet's time. Mut'ah was never allowed during the life of Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam, it was allowed only twice or thrice for a short time period (3 days or so) during military expeditions only. Moreover it wasn't permitted by Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam during all military expeditions, which shows that in those 2 or 3 military expeditions the situation and circumstances were different, therefore Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam allowed some people, not all of them, to contract mut'ah.
We don't have any single evidence from the life of Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam that he has ever allowed mut'ah under normal conditions.

During the Ghazwah of Khyber, Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam found out that some companions were cooking the donkey meat so he sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam issued orders that donkey meant wouldn't be eaten as it is haraam.

So what you think, donkey meat was the favourite dish of the people of that time?

Absolutely not, but under the stress of necessity one might be allowed to do even that thing which is prohibited under normal conditions.

On the Ghazwah of Khyber Rasoolullah sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam didn't allow people to contract mut'ah because after this expedition was over, Muslims got so many slave girls as the booty of war, this is why Allah and His Messenger didn't allow some people to contract mut'ah, as he might have been informed by Allah in advance that Khyber would be captured and our Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam always did what Allah commanded him to.
So if two or three times he allowed mut'ah then that was from the permission of Allah and not from his own will.

The stand of Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu

See, how contradicting your ways are, first you say we are not talking about the permissibility of mut'ah and then you give us the example of Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
I would paste my past reply in this regard from shiachat:

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 .

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...

"That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce."

This line destroys the whole defence of shias which they try to seek behind Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas radhiyAllahu 'anhu.
According to the above line, mut'ah can only be practised, according to Saiyidina Ibn 'Abbas, when women are scarce, which means for exampe for 5 men there is available only one woman.

I gave an example on shiachat in this connection, which I paste here:

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 the woman (which could lead to someone's death) or the group sex etc.
But Allah knows the best.

But I repeat, mut'ah is fun for shias.
anytime, anywhere with anyone..

[adiirama]

Hi Mr Debater,

We met again.Wow.the discussion on Mut'ah is very interesting.Mind I joining in?

Now,two mut'ahs according to Caliph Umar were forbidden-i.e Nikah Mut'ah and Hajj Tamattu'.But why the banning rule on Hajj Tamattu' has never been observed by all muslims as in the case of nikah Mut'ah? Who actually forbids both Nikah Mut'ah and Hajj Tamattu'? Is it Allah and his Prophet or Caliph Umar himself? Please quote references from Qur'an and hadiths?

Adi Irama

[adiirama]

Evidences From Quran and the Sunni Commentaries



Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, said:

(...Except the forbidden women) the rest are lawful unto you to seek them with gifts from your property (i.e., dowry), provided that you desire protection (from sin), not fornication. So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract, give unto them their appointed wages as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you both agree (in extending the contract) after fulfilling the (first) duty. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. (Quran 4:24)

: . . | : | . . : : : | | .4,_p_, _9 . _8 q_7 | . _8 q_, |_9 . _8_,_o 4_, o_,_e_,_o_,_w | |_o_9 : / (_) / /. (_) / (_) . (

In the above verse, the Arabic equivalent of the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives has NOT been used. Rather the derivative of word "Mut'a" (pleasure/temporary marriage) has been used, i.e., "Istamta'tum". The word Istamta'a is the tenth verbal form of the root m-t-a. As we will show shortly, the word Istamta'a has also been widely used in the authentic Sunni collections for Temporary Marriage. Of course, Mut'a is one type of marriage, but some of it's regulations are different than the permanent marriage, including the fact that the couple can extend this contract by mutual agreement as the end of verse specifies.

Moreover, if we look at the Sunni commentaries of Quran, many Sunni scholars such as Fakhr al-Razi confirm that the above verse (4:24) was revealed about the Temporary Marriage (Mut'a). They straightforwardly mentioned that temporary marriage became Halaal (permitted) DUE TO the above verse, but they assert that it was later prohibited. It is astonishing that many Sunni commentators mentioned under the above verse that:

Ali (RA) said: The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrong-doer)."

| | | || : : : || | o > |_,_c |_8_, 4_|_|| o_7 4_o_7 4_e_,_o_|| . | . . ( / / (_) : ^ | || . . | : : || . | | | | _o_w |_|| _, |_o 4_e_,_o_|| . _c _8_, _o_c . | |_| q_|(_S (_S / (_) (_S / (_) /

Sunni references:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran;
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p200, commentary of verse 4:24;
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under commentary of verse 4:24 with authentic chain of narrators, v8, p178, Tradition #9042;
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, p140, from several chain of transmitters;
• Tafsir al-Qurtubi, v5, p130, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran;
• Tafsir Ibn Hayyan, v3, p218, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran;
• Tafsir Nisaboori, by al-Nisaboori (8th century);
• Ahkam al-Quran, by Jassas, v2, p179, under commentary of verse 4:24.

A very similar tradition has also been narrated by Ibn Abbas (RA), and was mentioned by al-Tabari and al-Tha'labi in their Tafsir of Quran.



Mr Debater,of what value is their tafsir on verse 24?

Certainly you don't claimed to know better than Allama Fakhrudin Razi,Ibn Jarur Tabari and Imam Suyuti!

It is interesting to note that Umar did not attribute the prohibition of Mut'a to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). They were others who did that after Umar mainly to justify what he did. Umar clearly mentioned that: "Mut'a WAS permitted at the time of the Prophet and I PROHIBIT it!" The great Sunni scholar, Fakhr al-Razi, who has been given the title of "Imam al-Mushak****en" (the leader of ever-questioners/ever-doubtful) by the Sunnis, in his voluminous commentary of Quran mentioned under the verse of Temporary Marriage that:

Umar said: Two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both, and I punish those who commit it.
They are: Mut'a of pilgrimage and Mut'a of women.

Sunni references:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p201 under verse 4:24
• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

Here is the Arabic text of the above masterpiece of Umar: | . . | |. | | || | |: . | / |: : |_o_8_,_c _8_,| |_,| q | q_w _|| ]_8_c _|_c |_,_,|_) . |_,_e_,_o (_S / (_| / / (_S (_) | . || : : || : : | | : | | _@ |_w_,_|| 4_e_,_o q _7_7_|| 4_e_,_o : |_o_8_,_|_c .__,_o |_c | q / (_. : . /

Notice that Mut'a can be of two kinds: Mut'a of women (pleasure/temporary marriage) and Mut'a of Pilgrimage (Hajj al-Tamattu'). The latter is a way of performing Pilgrimage and has no relation with the former which is one way of performing marriage. Both types of Mut'a were practiced at the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and the early days of Umar's rule. But they were prohibited by Umar. There is another verse in Quran which gives evidence to the permissibility of the Mut'a of Pilgrimage. However this type of Pilgrimage is not the subject of our discussion here.

As we see from the above quote, Umar did NOT say that Mut'a was canceled by the Prophet. If it was really the Prophet who canceled Mut'a, Umar would have say: The two Mut'a were Halaal and then became Haraam at the time of the Prophet, and I am informing you about the second law set by the Prophet which canceled the first. But it is evident that Umar is straightforwardly saying that he is the one who is making it Haraam!

Al-Zamakhshari, another Sunni commentator of Quran Under the commentary of 4:24, reported that this verse is from the "Muhkamat" of Quran, relating that from Ibn Abbas (RA). (Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p519).

Also Both Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and al-Zamakhshari narrated that:

"al-Hakam Ibn Ayniyah was asked if the verse of Mut'a of women is abrogated. He answered: 'No'."

Sunni references:

• Tafsir al-Tabari, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran, v8, p178
• Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, under the verse 4:24, v1, p519

Also Ibn Kathir mentioned his commentary:

"al-Bukhari declared that Umar used to forbid people on Mut'a."

Sunni reference: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v1, p233

Also in another Sunni commentary it is reported that:

Umar said, while on the pulpit: "O folk! Three were (allowed) during the time of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF), and I forbid them, and make them Haraam, and punish on them. They were: Mut'a of women, Mut'a of Hajj (pilgrimage), and saying 'Hayya Ala Khair al-Amal'."

Sunni references:

• Sharh Al-Tajreed, by al-Fadhil al-Qoshaji, (Imama Section)
• al-Mustaniran, by al-Tabari
• al-Mustabeen, by al-Tabari

Remark: The third item mentioned above which was prohibited by Umar, is what is said in the Call for Prayer and Iqaamah after the phrase "Hayya Ala al-Falah", and it is practiced by the Shia to this date. It means "Hasten for the best deed". This part of call for prayer was abolished by Umar as well. Instead, he replaced it by the sentence: "Prayer is better than sleep"!

Interesting to know that there are some Sunni scholars who accepted that the Mut'a marriage is legal (Halaal) FOREVER exactly based on the above verse of Quran. Among those scholars are the Tunisian scholar, Shaikh al-Tahir Ibn 'Aashoor, under his Tafsir of the verse 4:24 of Quran. (See al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir", by al-Tahir Ibn 'Aashoor, v3, p5). And there has been such open-minded scholars who did not allow the love of their leaders affect their judgment.

Some tried to cast doubt about the meaning of "Mut'a", by saying that it literally means pleasure and not necessarily a special type of marriage. These people, instead of searching for the practical definition of Mut'a in the History, Hadith, and Jurisprudence, they look it up Arabic dictionary! Even the Arabic dictionary gives the practical meaning of Mut'a, that is temporary marriage. All Shia and Sunni scholars agree to this very fact. al-Qurtubi, who is one of the great Sunni commentators of Quran, wrote: "There is NO dispute among the scholars, either early (salaf) and late (khalaf) scholars, that Mut'a is a marriage for a fixed period of time and that it does not involve inheritance."

Replacing the practical meaning and the linguistic meaning is very dangerous and is prohibited in the religious rules, because one may also say, "Salat" (prayer) means praise/supplication and is not necessarily the acts that Muslims do every day. Or "Zakat" (alms) means "to cleans" and is not necessarily paying money, and so on...

Perhaps such people did not even read the traditions related to "Mut'a of women" which gives its practical meaning used at the time of the Prophet and the early Caliphs and how the companions used to contract by a handful of date as dower. Even the English version of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim have translated the word "Mut'a al-Nisa" to "Temporary Marriage," and they also translated "Istimta'a" to "marrying temporarily", and the traditions in that section which is a section in the chapter of marriage, gives the total picture of its meaning. (Please see Part II for the details of these traditions from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). Have these people ever heard of any other type of "Mut'a of women" in the history of Islam?

Some also tried to cast doubt about the meaning of the verse of Mut'a in Quran (4:24) by saying that the word "Istamta'a" refers to the consummation of the permanent marriage, after which dowry should be paid.

The above assertion is not correct. The best way to understand the meaning of the verse, is first to learn Arabic (since the exact translation of Quran to any other language is quite impossible), and second, to look at various commentaries (not just a filtered one), and third, to look at the traditions related to temporary marriage to see if they have used the word "Istamta'a". If we do all the three and search completely for different and controversial opinions, then we can say that we are close to the target.

In this part, we already provided references to many Sunni commentaries of Quran, in which the commentators confirmed that the verse was revealed for the temporary marriage, and they mentioned many traditions about the temporary marriage under the commentary of this verse. Then how can this verse be related to permanent marriage?! or perhaps you think these Sunni scholars had some loose screws upstairs. Few lines later, more interesting traditions from the Sunni commentaries under this verse are provided. Yet there many more available.

Moreover, who could we find better that Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (RA), the great companion of the Prophet, who according to Sahih Muslim said: "Istamta'a means contracting temporary marriage" (Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI titled: Temporary Marriage, Tradition #3246. Please see part II for the full Arabic text of the tradition). Jabir did NOT relate "Istamta'a" to consuming the marriage in general.

Furthermore, in the verse 4:24 Allah states, "...And there is no sin for you in what you both agree after fulfilling the duty (i.e., dowry of the first contract)". The mutual agreement after the duty refers to extending the period of temporary marriage after full payment of the previous dower, so that the woman can freely decide on the continuation of the marriage with no pressure or temptation. In this way, Allah encourages that people who are engaged in Mut'a will get more reward if they extend it to a bigger period (or perhaps convert it to a permanent marriage) by assigning a new dower after fulfilling the previous dower. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari wrote in his commentary of Quran:

Some traditions mention that the meaning of "And there is no sin for you in what you both agree after fulfilling the duty" means: O people! There is no sin for you to have an agreement between you and the women who you have had pleasure with them in a fixed-term contract, to extend the period at the time when the first period expires, and thus to prolong the temporary marriage by increasing the reward (of the Hereafter) as well as the duty (dowry) before you leave them. It is narrated on the authority of al-Suddy (RA) who said:

"And there is no sin for you in what you both agree after fulfilling the requirement. If the husband wishes he could convince her (to accept the renewal) after paying her the first dowry and just before the expiration date of marriage. In that case he would say to his wife: I contract Mut'a with you for such and such again. Thus he extends it before he leaves her due to the expiration of the first contract, and this is what the verse means." (Tradition #9046)

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, v8, p180.

Another reason for the fact that the dowry mentioned in the above verse does not refer to permanent marriage, is that Quran has already talked about the dowry for permanent marriage at the early part of the very same chapter by saying: 4:3 "...Marry women of your choice two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one..."

4:4 "And give the women (of permanent marriage) their dower as a free gift"

It is clear that the above verses are about permanent marriage and the dowry associated with it. So there would be no need that Allah repeats it along with its associated dowry again in the very same chapter. However if Allah intended to discuss about Mut'a, then it is some thing new. And this can be inferred from the choice of words which Allah used in the verse of Mut'a (4:24) by using the derivative of Mut'a in contrast with the other verses around it. 4:24 (...Except the forbidden women) the rest are lawful unto you to seek them with gifts from your property, provided that you desire protection (from sin), not fornication. So for whatever you enjoyed (Istamta'tum) them by the contract, give unto them their wages as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you both agree (in extending the contract) after fulfilling the duty (i.e., dowry of the first contract). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

Thus, in fact, Allah is discussing different types of marriages: first, permanent marriage in the verses before Verse 24, then temporary marriage in Verse 24, and then marriage with the slave girls in Verse 25: 4:25 If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women they may wed believing bondwomen from among those whom you rightfully possess, and Allah has full knowledge about your faith. You are one from another; wed them with the leave of their owners and give them their wages according to what is reasonable; they should be chaste not lustful nor taking paramours; when they are taken in wedlock if they fall into shame their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; And if you be patient, it is better for you; and Allah is forgiving and Merciful.

Here Allah mentions the dower related to slave girls. Thus Allah repeated the issue of dowry three times, one for permanent marriage, one for temporary marriage and one for the bondwomen.

Again, to stress that Verse 4:24 was revealed about temporary marriage, we present more traditions from the Sunni commentators. Al-Tabari mentioned that:

Mujahid (RA) said: "The phrase 'So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract [4:24]' means the Temporary Marriage (Nikah al-Mut'a)."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, v8, p176, Tradition #9034.

Also many Sunni commentary books mentioned similar to the tradition of Sahih al-Bukhari (see part II) with more details and put it under the verse 4:24 of Quran:

Imran Ibn Husain narrated: "The verse of Mut'a (4:24) was revealed in Allah's Book, and there did NOT came any other verse after that to abrogate it; and the Prophet ORDERED US to do it, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and he did not forbade us from it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."

Sunni reference:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, pp 200,202, under the verse 4:24
• Tafsir Ibn Hayyan, v3, p218, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran
• Tafsir Nisaboori, by al-Nisaboori (8th century)

So it is clear that 'Imran Ibn Husain is talking about Mut'a of women here, otherwise the above Sunni commentators would not put it under this verse, or else such scholars are just stupid (may Allah protect us from such words). The positioning of such traditions is another proof for the fact that the verse 4:24 is about Mut'a of women.

In many traditions in the Sunni commentaries of Quran, the phrase "to an appointed time" has been added to Verse 4:24 after the word Istamta'tum. In other words, it reads "So for whatever you have enjoyed (Istamta'tum) them by the contract to an appointed time": | | || . : : : | | . _o_w_o |_7| _|| . _8_,_o 4_, o_,_e_,_o_,_w | |_o_9 (_S (_|. (_S (_) . ( ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This however should be considered as commentary of the verse which was revealed along with Quran, but NOT as a part of the Quran. In fact, many verses were revealed by Allah which are not embodied in the present Quran because they were commentaries of the verses of Quran, but not a part of Quran itself. It is well-known that Hadith Qudsi is also revelation, but it is not a part of Quran. In fact Quran testifies that anything that the Prophet said was revelation. Allah Almighty said in Quran about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) that:

"Nor does he (Muhammad) speak out of his desire. Whatever he says is nothing but a revelation that is revealed." (Quran 53:3-4).

Thus all the speeches of the Prophet were revelation, and surely the speeches of the Prophet were not limited to Quran. It also includes interpretation of Quran as well as his Sunnah. Now let's go back to the traditions which I wanted to present. It is narrated that:

Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas (RA) recited the verse 4:24 with the addition of "to an appointed time". I said to him: "I did not read it this way." Ibn Abbas replied: "I swear by Allah, this is how Allah revealed it," and Ibn Abbas repeated this statement three times."

Sunni references:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, v8, p177, Tradition #9038
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran narrating similar tradition from Jubair.

also:

Abu Nadhra said: I asked Ibn Abbas about temporary marriage (Mut'a of women). Ibn Abbas (RA) said: "Do you not read 'For whatever you enjoyed (Istamta'tum) them by the contract to an appointed time'?" I said: "If I would have read it this way, I wouldn't ask you (about temporary marriage)!" He replied: "Certainly the verse is about it."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the commentary of verse 4:24, v8, p177, Traditions #9036-9037

It is also narrated that:

al-Suddy (RA) said: "The verse 'So for those of whom you have had pleasure with them by the contract to an appointed time' is about Mut'a, that is, a man marries a woman with a provision (i.e., dowry) for a fixed period of time and makes two witnesses, and (if virgin,) he asks the permission of her guardian, and when the time period is expired, they should separate and they will not inherit each other."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the commentary of verse 4:24, v8, p176, Tradition #9033

Moreover:

Abu Karib said Yahya said: "I saw a book with Nasir in which it was: 'So for whatever you have had of pleasure with them by the contract to an appointed time.'"

Sunni references:

• Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the verse 4:24, pp 176-177, Tradition #9035
• Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran narrating similar tradition from Ibn Abi Thabit.

Another companion, Ubay Ibn Ka'ab (who based on authentic Sunni sources the Prophet ordered the companions to trust him in the matter of Quran as one of the three trustee persons in this regard. See Sahih al-Bukhari, English, vol. 6, Tradition #521) also mentioned that additional phrase:

Qatadah (RA) said: "The way that Ubay Ibn Ka'ab recited the verse was: 'So for those of whom you enjoyed by the contract to an appointed time.'"

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, under the commentary of verse 4:24, v8, p178, Tradition #9041

Beside the above mentioned authorities, there were others such as Sa'id Ibn Jubair, Abi Is'haq, and Umay who have also mentioned this extra phrase when reading this verse. Well, as I said, this extra phrase, though revealed, was only commentary and not a part of Quran. If one wants to write it, he should put it inside curly brackets showing that it is not a part of Quran. There are many of such extra phrases which can be found in both Shia and Sunni sources, but they are only the divine interpretation of the verses. This concludes the discussion on the Quranic verse of Mut'a and what Sunni commentators had to say about the verse. In the next part, we Insha Allah study the authentic Sunni collections of traditions with regard to temporary marriage

[adiirama]

Mr Debater,

Another Shia arguments supported by your books of hadith.

let us now look at some of the Sunni collections of traditions. It is narrated in Sahih Muslim that:

Jabir Ibn Abdullah and Salama Ibn al-Akwa' narrated: There came to us the proclaimer of Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) and said: "Allah's Messenger has granted you to benefit yourself (Istamta'u), i.e., to contract temporary marriage with women."

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3246
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1022, Tradition #13, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

In the above tradition the verb Istamta'a (to enjoy; to have pleasure) has been used which is the exact form of the verb used in Quran in the verse of Mut'a 4:24, and moreover, Jabir said in the above tradition that Istamta'a means performing Mut'a of women (temporary marriage). Similarly it is narrated that:

Salama Ibn al-Akwa' and Jabir Ibn Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3247
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1022, Tradition #14, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

Moreover al-Bukhari narrated from another companion of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) the following tradition:

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: ]

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v6, Hadith #43
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v2, p375, v6, p34
• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p436 on the authority of 'Imran Ibn al-Qasir

As we pointed out, Mut'a can be of two kinds: Mut'a of women (pleasure marriage) and Mut'a of Hajj (Hajj-at-Tamatu). Both were practiced at the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and the early days of Umar's rule. But they were abolished by Umar. Thus basically, the above tradition refers to both types of Mut'a which were prohibited by Umar. Moreover, as we gave evidences in Part I, many Sunni commentators have put this very same tradition of Imran Ibn Husain under the commentary of verse of Mut'a marriage (4:24) showing that this Mut'a refers to Mut'a marriage.

It is interesting to know that in Sahih Muslim as well as in the commentaries of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that the "man" mentioned in the above tradition ("But a man expressed what he wished") is Umar:

"A person said according to his personal opinion, and it was Umar."

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2825
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p898, Tradition #166.

Also:

"The man intended here is the Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab."

Sunni references:

• Fat'h al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, v4, p177
• Sharh al-Nawawi on Sahih Muslim, v3, p364, Dar al-Sha'ab print

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.

It is also narrated in Sahih Muslim that:

Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas commanded to do Mut'a while Ibn Zubair forbade to do it. I mentioned this to Jabir Ibn Abdillah and he said: It is through me that this Hadith has been circulated. We did Mut'a (of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for his Messenger whatever He like and as He liked. And its command was revealed in Quran. Thus accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah has commanded you, and confirm (by reverting to permanent marriage) the marriages of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2801
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p885, Tradition #145.

Again the above tradition has references to both Mut'a, and Umar said that Allah made permissible what he wished at the time of the Prophet and its corresponding command was revealed in Quran, yet he will stone any one who contracts the fixed-term marriage.

Also, both al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated the following tradition from Abdullah Ibn Masud who was another companion of the Prophet:

Narrated 'Abdullah Ibn Masud:

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 (to castrate ourselves) and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (Mut'a) 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)

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, v7, Tradition #13a
• Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v6, p11, under Tafsir of verse 5:87 of Quran
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1022, Tradition #11, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"
• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3243

Following the above tradition in Sahih Muslim, it is narrated that:

This Hadith has been narrated on the authority of Isma'il with the same chain of transmitters (but the words are): "We were young so we said: "O Allah's Apostle! should we not have ourselves castrated? But he (the narrator) did NOT say we were on an expedition."

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3245
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1022, Tradition #12, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

One side comment here is that, based on the above authentic traditions, masturbation is forbidden, otherwise the Prophet (PBUH&HF) would have ordered his companions to masturbate instead of contracting temporary marriage! The above action of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) proves that if one is in danger of fornication, he should contract temporary marriage and avoid masturbation. The prohibition of masturbation is also supported by the verses of Quran, as we will discuss in Part V.

Some claim that the Prophet used to allow temporary marriage in a particular expedition and then prohibited it on the day of victory. This allegation falls apart when we see that some of the famous companions said that Mut'a was widely practiced from the time of the Prophet till the time of Umar, and was continued to be promoted by some companions even after the death of Umar. Moreover, if Mut'a was just for an expedition, the Prophet would have mentioned it at the time he allowed it. They, of course, did Mut'a in the expeditions as well, but certainly it was not limited to that. Moreover, the verse of Quran does not have any limitation of this kind. This leads us to believe such allegation is just a mere excuse to justify the present situation. As we will witness in the following traditions, the companions supported Mut'a without mentioning the battle. They did not mention that we ONLY did it during the expeditions.

Beside what was quoted at the beginning, Sahih Muslim has more traditions with reference to the prominent companion, Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari (RA), which are as follows:

Narrated Abu Nadhra:

While I was in the company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah (RA), a person came to him and said that Ibn Abbas (RA) and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'a (Mut'a of Hajj and Mut'a of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the life time of Allah's Messenger (PBUH&HF). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3250.
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1023, Tradition #17, also v2, p914, Tradition #1249.

Again the above tradition emphasizes that both Mut'a were abolished by Umar, and some people did not return to it at least publicly, because Umar threatened people that he will stone any one who does it. Below is a more straight forward tradition:

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

(_

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3249
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1023, Tradition #16, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

Again, in the Arabic text of the above tradition, the verb "Istamta'a" has been used for the temporary marriage which exactly what Quran has used. Also as we see, there is no mention of its restriction to battle. It was being widely practiced at the time of the Prophet and the rulers who came after him. Also:

Ibn Juraih reported: Ata' reported that Jabir Ibn Abdullah came to perform Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the life time of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr, and Umar.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3248
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1023, Tradition #15, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

As we witness here again, the verb "Istamta'a" has been used in the above tradition for the temporary marriage which in conformity with the verse of Quran.

Another person who opposed Umar's idea in this regard, was Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) who was one of the great companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Al-Bukhari wrote in his Sahih:

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 (qualified permanent) women are scarce, or similar cases." On that, Ibn Abbas said, "Yes."

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v7, Hadith #51

Do you see anything about battle as a condition here? Moreover, if Ibn Abbas relied to what others alleged that the Prophet later prohibited it, he would not allow himself to give Fatwa in this regard. He did that since he knew these allegations are false and are solely to justify Umar's opinion. Also Muslim narrated in his Sahih that:

Urwa Ibn Zubair reported that Abdullah Ibn Zubair 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 favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are a rude person and devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was Practiced during the life time of the leader of pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourself, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3261
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1026, Tradition #27, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

Did Ibn Abbas say, just during a battle? certainly not. This is what some Sunni scholars invented simply to justify the action of Umar. In the above tradition Abdullah Ibn Zubair insults Ibn Abbas (RA) by saying that his heart is blind, simply because he believed that Mut'a should be promoted since it was the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Ibn Zubair forgot that he himself was born out of Mut'a! (See Sahih Muslim, v1, p354; al-Iqd al-Fareed, v2, p139). Then Ibn Zubair threatened that he will stone Ibn Abbas (RA). This is while Ibn Abbas (RA) was one of the outstanding companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and Abdullah Ibn Zubair wanted to teach him his religion, after he fought both Imam Ali and Ibn Abbas in the battle of Camel, and shedding the blood of innocent Muslims.

Also in Sahih Muslim it narrated that:

"Muslim al-Qurri said: I asked Ibn Abbas about Mut'a and he permitted it, where as Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. So Ibn Abbas said: "This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah's Messenger had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri) said: So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady. She said: Verily Allah's Messenger permitted it.

• Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p909, Traditions #194-195. In Tradition #195 the subnarrator said: "The narrator used the word Mut'a alone, and I do not know if it was Mut'a of Hajj or Mut'a of women." However it is known that what Ibn Zubair used to forbid was Mut'a of women as is clear from the traditions mentioned earlier.

Even after the death of Umar, and even after Uthman, many companions did not accept the order of Umar and insisted that temporary marriage is lawful. These advocates of Mut'a never mentioned that it was restricted to a battle.

Some people believe that a certain individual did Mut'a with one of the daughters of Umar during the Umar's rule, and when Umar got to know of it, he decided to prohibit Mut'a.

Let me clear the fact that we do not have hatred toward Umar. We believe that he was one of the companions of the Prophet, but we do not put him in a high position since, as you witnessed partially, there are strong proofs that he did some innovations based on his own Ijtihad which were terribly wrong. We strongly believe that Fatwa does not work when there is explicit text of Quran or authentic Hadith to the contrary. Abolishing Temporary Marriage is just one example of such innovations. Even according to Sahih al-Bukhari Umar himself straightforwardly confessed that he did some innovations in prayers and said: "What a nice innovation"!!! (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic English version, v3, p227). He also did change the regulations on Tayammum and many other rules of Islam.

Another companion who opposed this innovation of Umar, was his own son!! His name was Abdullah Ibn Umar. He was in favor of both Mut'a of Hajj and Mut'a of women. I give two traditions expressing each Mut'a. It is narrated in Sahih al-Tirmidhi that:

"some one asked Abdullah Ibn Umar about Mut'a (of Hajj), he said: It is permitted (Halaal). So he was asked: your father forbade it. He said: Do you think that my father can forbid what the Prophet did? Should I follow what my father said, or should I follow what the Prophet ordered? The man said: Of course the orders of the Prophet (PBUH&HF)."

Sunni references:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v1, p157
• Tafsir al-Qurtubi, v2, p365, reported from al-Darqunti

Another report in the above source:

"When a man from Syria asked Abdullah Ibn Umar about the Mut'a of women, he said it is Halaal. The man said: Your father had made it forbidden! Ibn Umar said: Do you think that if my father was forbidding it and the Messenger of Allah used to (allow) its practice, then you should leave the Sunnah and follow what my father said?"

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi



You have said so much and commented so much.Now let us Shia explained our views.Oh yes,you can reject all those tafsir and ahadith found in the shahihs.You can interprete them as you wish but remeber the Shias do not need your stamp of approval for our beliefs!



Again the reader should not be deceived in thinking that you are an ulama.

Like me,you are just a layman.Ccompared to as-Suyuti,Fakhrudin Razi,Tabari etc you are just a 'kindergarden kid' in the midst of a Professor!



Adi Irama

[adiirama]

After an overview of the commentaries of Quran and the authentic collections of Traditions, let us, now, look at some other types of Sunni references in with regard to Mut'a.

Evidences From the Sunni History/Fiqh/Misc. Books

The previously-mentioned tradition of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (AS) given in Sunni commentary books of Quran (please see Part I), has also been reported in many other Sunni books with a simple variation in some, that is, using the word "Shafa" meaning "a few" instead of "Shaqi" meaning a playboy:

"Ali (RA) said: The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin of) fornication except a (Shaqi/Shafa)."

Sunni references:

• Bidayat al-Mujtahid, by Ibn Rushd, v2, p58
• al-Nihaya, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p249
• al-Faiq, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p331
• Lisan Al-Arab, Ibn Mandhoor, v19, p166
• Taj al-Aroos, v10, p200
• Fat'h al-Bari, v9, p141
• Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v8, p293
• Al-Iqd Al-Fareed, v2, p139
• Umadat al-Qari, by al-'Ayni, v8, p310, (reports Mut'a was Halaal at the time of the Prophet + Abu Bakr + some of the Umar's period.)

Also al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti said about Umar:

"He (Umar) is the first who made Mut'a forbidden (Haraam)."

Sunni reference: Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p136

Also al-Qastalani wrote:

The phrase "But a man said with his opinion what he wished" (as was mentioned in the authentic Sunni books such as Sahih al-Bukhari), is Umar Ibn al-Khattab and not Uthman, because he was the first to forbid Mut'a. So the one came after him (i.e., Uthman) was only following him in that action."

Sunni reference: al-Irshad, by al-Qastalani, v4, p169

As we mentioned, Ibn Abbas supported Mut'a even after the battle of Camel (which happened when Imam Ali became the head of Islamic states), and years after he lost his eyes. Let me give you one interesting tradition reported by Ibn Abi al-Hadid. The brief version of this tradition was mentioned in Sahih Muslim (which was presented in Part II), but here there are more details including the events related to the war between Aisha and Imam Ali (AS). Ibn Abbas (RA) was known for his smart answers in the debates. Here is the tradition:

Ibn Zubair gave a speech over the pulpit in Mecca when Ibn Abbas was sitting under the pulpit beside other people. Then Ibn Zubair said:

"Among these people is a man whom Allah has made his heart blind as He did with his eyes (referring to Ibn Abbas who was blind at the time); and he thinks that Mut'a of woman is permitted by Allah and his Messenger; and he issues religious verdicts for every single issues; and he has stolen the treasury of Basra yesterday and caused financial problems for the people of that city, and how can I blame him when he fought the mother of believers (Aisha) and the companions of the Messenger of Allah and those who protected him." Hearing that, Ibn Abbas said to Sa'd Ibn Khuthaimah to take him in front of Ibn Zubair since Ibn Abbas was blind. After he faced Ibn Zubair, Ibn Abbas said:

"O' Ibn Zubair! As for blindness, verily Allah said in Quran that:

'For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind.' (Quran 22:46)

And as for my religious verdicts, there are reasons behind them that neither you nor your companions comprehend them. And as for the treasury, it was the money which was collected and we gave every liable person his just share. As for Mut'a, you better ask your mother Asma'! (note: Ibn Zubair was born of Mut'a marriage between Zubair and the daughter of Abu Bakr, Asma'). And as for our fighting the mother of believers, her title is referring to us, not you and your father (i.e., 'believers' is referring to us). Your father (Zubair) and your uncle (Talha) destroyed the protection that Allah provided for her, and used her for Fitna by fighting beside her while keeping their own wives at their homes; and they were not fair to Allah and His Messenger by exposing the wife of the Prophet and protecting their own wives; and as our fight against you (in the battle of Camel), we came forward to you, and if we were infidels (Kuffar) then you have become infidels by running away from us (after being defeated in the battle field), and if we were believers then you have become infidels by fighting against us. And if a woman was not among you, I wouldn't leave any bone among your people unless I would have broken."

When Ibn Zubair came back to her mother and ask her about Mut'a, she replied: "Did I not warn you from facing Ibn Abbas and facing Bani Hashim (The clan of the Prophet(PBUH&HF)), because they have answer for everything. O my son! Avoid this blind man for neither human nor unseen creatures (Jinn) can corner him."

Sunni reference: Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v4, pp 489-490

Also, in this connection, al-Raghib al-Isbahani reported:

Ibn Zubair denounced Ibn Abbas for his opinion on Mut'a. Thus Ibn Abbas told him: "Go and ask your mother what she did with your father." When Ibn Zubair asked her, she said: "By God, I did not conceive you except through Mut'a."

Sunni reference: al-Muhadhiraat, by al-Raghib al-Isbahani, v2, p96

It is also reported that:

Yahya Ibn Aktham asked a Shaikh from Basra: "Why do you permit Mut'a?" He answered: "Due to Umar Ibn al-Khattab". Yahya asked: "How is that? Umar was the most sever one against it?" He answered: "Yes, it is an authentic narration that Umar ascended the pulpit and said: 'Allah and His Prophet permitted you two Mut'a, but I forbid you on both and will punish those who commit it', so we accepted the witness of Umar (that Allah and His Prophet permitted it) but we did not accept his prohibition."

Sunni reference: al-Muhadhiraat, by al-Raghib al-Isbahani, v2, p94

Malik Ibn Anas and al-Shafi'i (two of the four Sunni Imams) as well as many Sunni traditionist reported the following with authentic chain of narrators:

Urwah Ibn Zubair narrated that Khulah Bint Hakim came to Umar Ibn al-Khattab and said: Rabi'ah Ibn Umayyah practiced Mut'a with a woman and the woman has become pregnant from him. Umar became angry and said: "About this Mut'a, had I done (the ban) sooner than this, I would have stoned him."

Sunni references:

• al-Muwatta', by Malik Ibn Anas, on the topic of Mut'a, v2, p30
• Kitab al-Am, by al-Shafi'i, v7, p219
• Sunan al-Kubra, by al-Bayhaqi, v7, p206

Moreover, it is reported that:

Umm Abdillah, the daughter of Abu Khuthaimah said that a single (unmarried) man from Syria came to her and said: "I am under emotional pressure for remaining unmarried, thus find for me a woman so as to contract temporary marriage with her." Therefore She found a woman for him and he made Mut'a contract with her having some witnesses. He remained with her till the marriage was over. When Umar found out what happened, he called him and said: "Why did you do that?" The man replied: "We did it at the time of the Prophet and he did not forbid us till Allah took his soul, then we did it at the time of Abu Bakr and he did not forbid us till Allah took his soul too, and then we did it during your rule and you have not forbid us before." Umar replied: "By whom my sole is in His hand! Had I forbidden it sooner, I would have stoned you so that you could understand the difference between marriage and fornication."

Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v8, p294, via al-Tabari

How can Umar prohibit something which the messenger of Allah did not? How can he threat to stone an unmarried man who did Mut'a, while the punishment of an unmarried man is not stoning? Even the four Sunni schools do not subscribe to such idea. They consider the punishment of a person who does Mut'a to be "Ta'zeer" which is even much less than the punishment of an unmarried person who commit fornication!

What I am trying to say is that there are numerous documented traditions as well as Sunni historical records which assert that Umar was the one who forbade Mut'a, and if he did that it means that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) really didn't; otherwise, Umar would not have had to! This is contrary to the various sporadic reports that claim otherwise, to a different point in time. These contradicting reports will be discussed in Part IV.

Now the question is: What is the "measure" for us? Which opinion and channel of transmission of Sunnah should we trust? As we know, there have been many other instances where the companions did not agree with one interpretation of Quran and Sunnah, and the Sunnah of the Prophet has reached us through these very same companions. In this case, (as well as other issues) we have chosen to follow Ali (AS) who was admittedly the most knowledgeable among the companions. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this choice, just as others have chosen to follow other parties. The fact is that one can not follow ALL the companions when they disagreed in such issues.

A Sunni brother claimed that the majority of the Companions held the view that after the completion of the Islamic legislation, temporary marriage was made Haraam.

The above assertion is not true however. The fact is that No companion ever mentioned it Haraam until AFTER the rule of Umar. It was then, that some started saying that it is made Haraam.

Even if we suppose that the majority of companions said something, this does not oblige us to follow them. What we are supposed to follow are the words of Allah in Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The Shi'a scholars also agree on the validity of Ijmaa' (consensus), not as a source of religion, but rather as a fact. Ijmaa' means what is unanimously held by ALL Muslims. This fact is taken from the Sunna and is due to the tradition of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) where he said:

"My community shall not unite on something wrong."

This proves the fact that even if most of Muslims go wrong in some issues there should exist one or some individuals who do not join them in that regard as they might have evidence at hand from Quran and Sunna regarding those issues.



It is clear that Ijmaa' does not give any weight to the majority. In fact, it gives more weight to the minority because even if one scholar disagrees, the Ijmaa' (consensus) is broken!

There is no Ijma' in the subject of Mut'a. Most of the companions and their disciples did not agree with its prohibition by Umar. But only some of them dared to raise their voice.

There is no Ijma' in this issue among the Sunni scholars either. I have mentioned the name of some the Sunni scholars in the previous parts who believed Mut'a is permitted. Moreover Shia scholars are another reason for breaking this Ijma'.

Ibn Hazm (d. 456) who is one of the Sunni scholars, in his book "Muhalla" gave the name of some of the companions and their disciples who believed that Mut'a is Halaal. In the 9th section of the chapter of Marriage in his book "Muhalla", Ibn Hazm gives a detailed account of Mut'a and its regulations. Among the numerous companions and their disciples who believed in practicing Mut'a after the demise of the Prophet are:

Imam Ali (AS), Abu Dhar, Jabir Ibn Abdillah, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Masud, Zubair Ibn al-Awwam, Imran Ibn Husain, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Ubay Ibn Ka'ab, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Salamah Ibn Umayyah, Awka' Ibn Abdillah, Salamah Ibn al-Awka', Khalid Ibn Muhajir, 'Amr Ibn Huraith, Rabi'a Ibn Umayya, Suhair, Sa'id Ibn Jubair Tawoos, Qotadah, Mujahid, Ataa al-Madani al-Suddy, and Imam al-Hasan (AS), ...

Many of their narrations in this regard has been recorded in many Sunni references such as the first volume of Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

To give a better picture of the opposition of the companions, let us look at the History of al-Tabari (English version) which reports that the companions were unhappy about four things out of the innovations made by Umar. One of those who dared to talk to Umar about these issues was Imran Ibn Sawadah. The report indicates that even Umar was unhappy about what he did and surprisingly confessed that temporary marriage is permitted (Halaal)!!! Here is the report:

Imran Ibn Sawadah reported:

I went to Umar's house and told him that I want to give him some advice. His reply was, "The person giving good advice is welcomed anytime." I said, "Your community finds fault with you on four accounts." Umar put the top of his whip in his beard and the lower part on his thigh. Then he said, "Tell me more." I continued, "It has been mentioned that you declared the lesser pilgrimage forbidden during the months of pilgrimage..." He answered, "It is permitted. (But the reason that I forbade it was that) if they were to perform the lesser pilgrimage during the months of the pilgrimage, they would regard it as being a lieu of the full pilgrimage, and (Mecca) would be celebrated by no one, although it is part of God's greatness. You are right."

I continued, "It is also said that you have forbidden temporary marriage, although it was a license given by God. We enjoy a temporary marriage for a handful (of dates), and we can separate after three nights." He replied, "The Messenger of God permitted it at the time of necessary. Then people regained their life of comfort. I do not know any Muslim who has practiced this or gone back to it (after I forbade). Now, anyone who wishes to, can marry for a handful (of dates) and separate after three nights. You are right." I continued, "You emancipate a slave girl if she gives birth, without her master's (consenting to) the emancipation... (and the fourth complain is) There have been some complaints of your raising your voice against your subjects and your addressing them harshly." ...

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v14, pp 139-140

I was really astonished when I read the above passage. Umar is saying that people can engage in Temporary Marriage again!!! Interesting to see that the one who was talking to Umar, says that you forbade it but we still ENJOY this type of marriage! He uses the word "enjoy" and not "enjoyed" meaning that what is important to us is Allah's command and not Umar's, and thus we still do it. He also mentioned that Temporary Marriage is licensed by Allah and people are unhappy about this innovation of Umar.

It is interesting to note that Umar NEVER attributed the prohibition of Mut'a to the Prophet (PBUH&HF). They were others who did that after his death, mainly to justify what Umar did which was also being enforced in the reign of Uthman. We gave two different traditions in Part I where Umar clearly mentioned that: "Mut'a WAS permitted at the time of the Prophet and I PROHIBIT it!" If it was really the Prophet who canceled Mut'a, Umar would have said: The two Mut'a were Halaal and then became Haraam at the time of the Prophet, and I am informing you about the second law set by the Prophet which canceled the first.

Moreover, Sunnis believe that Mut'a of al-Hajj is permitted, and Umar made a mistake in his judgment in prohibiting it. Then the question is that: why do the Sunnis differentiate between the two Mut'a while both were prohibited by Umar according to the above tradition and the traditions of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim? When Sunnis agree that Umar made a mistake in forbidding the Mut'a of al-Hajj, then isn't it probable that he also made the very same mistake for the Mut'a of women?

I only would like you to observe that the Shia follow the Imams of Ahlul- Bayt (AS), the pure descendants of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and if the Prophet (PBUH&HF) had said something to that effect (i.e., prohibition of Mut'a), then his Ahlul-Bayt would not have hidden it from their followers. This gives more credence and leads one to believe that Umar did forbid it and not the Prophet, and Umar did it as an act of "Ijtihad", on his own!!

Mr Debater can agree or disagree with our views.We have presented our case quoting references from the Qur'an,the Sunni hadiths,tafsirs and history books.As he himself admitted he is not a scholar so whatever he says is merely his opinion as a layman.Anyway do we need his stamp of approval for our beliefs! Must be kidding,

Adi Irama
Indonesia

[adiirama]

Some Contradicting Reports

There are few traditions which claim that the Prophet forbade Mut'a. There are however many contradictions among these reports. Let us look at the following traditions which alleged that the temporary marriage was forbidden FOREVER in the battle of Khaibar (1/7 AH). We will discuss what types of problems these traditions have shortly.

Muhammad Ibn Ali narrated on the authority of his father Ali that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

• Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3265

also:

Ali (may peace be upon him) heard that Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) gave some relaxation in connection of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Don't be hasty (in your religious verdict), Ibn Abbas, for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the doing of it and eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

• Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3266

Surprisingly, the following traditions claim that, long after the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet ORDERED to do Mut'a when he Captured Mecca (9/8 AH) but he allegedly forbade it when they left Mecca:

Sabra al-Juhanni narrated: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did not come out of it (Mecca) till he forbade us.

[Note: The Saudi-paid translator has used "permitted" instead of "ordered". This while the Arabic text of the Hadith uses "ordered". This shows that the Prophet not only allowed Mut'a, but also promoted it in Mecca.]

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3257
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1025, Tradition #22, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

also:

Sabra narrated: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered his companions to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory... (then I made Mut'a) and I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to part with them.

[Note: Again the Saudi-paid translator has used "permitted" instead of "ordered" while the Arabic text of the Hadith uses "ordered":]

.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3258
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1025, Tradition #23, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

Now, let us look at the following traditions which claims that the Temporary marriage was forbidden FOREVER in Mecca when the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was speaking beside Ka'ba. We will shortly see why these traditions do not seem to be correct.

Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), he said: O' people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to them (as dower).

.

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3255
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1025, Tradition #21, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

A side comment here is that again the word "Istimta'a" has been used in this tradition for temporary marriage which is exactly what Quran has used.

In the next tradition after the above tradition in Sahih Muslim, the same narrator (Sabra) has narrated the same tradition with addition that:

"I saw Allah's Messenger standing between the pillar and gate of Ka'ba when speaking the Hadith."

Sunni references:

• Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3256
• Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1025, Tradition #21, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

The following tradition, however, indicates that the Prophet allowed Temporary marriage after the battle of Hunain (after 10/8 AH) which was after the conquest of Mecca:

Narrated Iyas Ibn Salama on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas (this was after the Battle of Hunain in 8H), and then forbade it.

{Note: The sentence inside parentheses is the Saudi translator's footnote, and is NOT mine.}

Sunni references:

Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3251

Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1023, Tradition #18, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"

Now, let us see what the problems are:

1. Some Sunni scholars have rated these traditions as single (Mufrad), i.e., they are single reports. Ibn Asakir has mentioned the above tradition attributed to Ali, in whose chain of authority is Ibn Saa'ed. Then he wrote: "Ibn Saa'ed is a LIAR". Also other Sunni Scholars such as Darqunti mentioned that these traditions are single. (See Ifraad, by Darqunti).
   
2. If the Prophet has forbidden the temporary marriage FOREVER in the Day of Khaibar (1/7 AH), why it was practiced even after the battle of Hunain (after 10/8 AH) with the direct order of the Prophet? (See the reference above) In other words:
   
   How is that possible that one is forbidden FOREVER and in two different points of time, in the Day of Khaibar (1/7 AH) and on the victory Mecca (9/8 AH) FOREVER, and people were practicing it between these two instants of time and after these two instances with the order of the Prophet? In the mentioned tradition about the battle of Hunain, it is said that the messenger of Allah ALLOWED to do Mut'a for after the battle of Hunain. So we can not say people did it because they did not know it was forbidden forever. The traditions confirms that Mut'a was done with the direct order of the Prophet. So how can we justify these few alleged traditions that the Prophet forbade it forever before that? This contradiction itself supports the fact that all these few narrations were made up to cover up and to justify what Umar enforced during his rule based on his idea. How nice is the verse 4:82 of Quran describes that one can find many contradictions in something that is not from Allah.
   
   Two Sunni scholars: al-Qurtubi (in his commentary of Quran) and al-Nawawi (in his commentary of Sahih Muslim) are in the opinion that different traditions concerning the ban of Mut'a specify seven different dates!!!
   
3. How is that possible that people after the demise of the Prophet were practicing it? To answer this, some claim that although the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it, but it had not been given wide publicity, and thus some continued to practice it till Umar reinforced that law during his rule.
   
   If this allegation is true, then it implies that all the companions except Umar were ignorant of the Sunnah of the Prophet, and ignorant of the fact that Mut'a was forbidden forever, and they continued practicing it after the demise of the Prophet, and quarreled amongst each other in this issue. They committed the sin of fornication and encouraged others to do that, and no body said to them not to do that BEFORE the rule of Umar. All of a sudden, some of them started saying it after the rule of Umar.
   
   Then how can we conclude that they ALL carried the Sunnah of the Prophet and if we follow ANY ONE among them we will go to paradise, because any single one of them is a star of guidance (no matter if it came out to be Muawiyah). What will be wrong if we follow Jabir who said Umar forbade it? What about Imran Ibn Husain who believed that Umar said what he wished, and neither Allah nor His Prophet prohibited it? What will be wrong if we take the opinion of Imam Ali (AS), the most knowledgeable one among the companions who said:

   The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi)." (See above for two set of references given before, one set from books on Tafsir and one set from books on history and misc. in Parts I & III respectively.)

   Imam Ali (AS), Abu Dhar, Jabir Ibn Abdillah, Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Masud, Zubair Ibn al-Awwam, Imran Ibn Husain, and Abdullah Ibn Umar, Ubay Ibn Ka'ab, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Salama Ibn Umayyah, Awka' Ibn Abdillah, Salama Ibn al-Awka', Khalid Ibn Muhajir, 'Amr Ibn Huraith, Rabi'a Ibn Umayya, Suhair, Sa'id Ibn Jubair Tawoos, Qotadah, Mujahid, Ataa al-Madani al-Suddy, and Imam al-Hasan (AS), ... are also the stars of guidance if that Sunni tradition is true. So if we follow them with regard to permissibility of Mut'a, are we not guided then?
   
   Also if the claim that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) allowed it for a single instance is true, then he would have told them at the same time that they can do it only for this certain period of time, and it will be forbidden after that for ever. In other words, he should have mentioned its prohibition at the time that he prescribed it. In this way there would be no confusion, and we can say the Prophet (PBUH&HF) delivered the Message in this regard. Now the question is: Did the Prophet mentioned its prohibition at the time when he allowed it momentarily?
   
   If yes, then why did prominent companions such as Jabir Ibn Abdillah al- Ansari, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Masud, Imran bin Husain, and Abdullah Ibn Umar, practiced (and some even promoted) Mut'a long after the demise of the Prophet?
   
   If no (i.e., the Prophet did not mention its prohibition at the time he allowed it momentarily), then the Prophet intentionally confused some of his own companions such as those I mentioned above, because as a result of their "ignorance", some of them even practiced and promoted Temporary Marriage even after the rule of Umar!
   
   Moreover if the prohibition of Mut'a was not given wide publicity by the Prophet, then it would contradict the following verse of Quran:

   "He (Allah) has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you" (Quran 6:119)

   Is it possible that the Messenger of Allah does not publicize what has been prohibited by Allah, which led the companions commit adultery till near the end of the rule of Umar, until it was finally decided that it is time to publicize this fact and stop the Muslims and companions from committing adultery!! How can we justify the above verse of Quran if the Prophet did not inform his companions the prohibition of Mut'a so that they do not quarrel amongst each other because of their ignorance of such important subject?
   
   Also, do Sunnis think that the above mentioned companions did not have any fear of Allah? If they had any fear of Allah, and if they did not have strong proof that Mut'a is allowed forever, they would quit promoting Mut'a after Umar. Ibn Abbas did not accept what Umar said and he continued to promote Mut'a even after the battle of Camel when he argued with Ibn Zubair. Was Ibn Abbas suspicious to Umar? Why didn't he believe in him? The reason simply is the fact that Umar did not attribute this prohibition to the Prophet. Umar said: "The Prophet allowed it and I prohibit it." Then if I were Ibn Abbas, I would do the same. Reviving the Sunnah of the Prophet which has been forsaken is a duty and has a lot of reward, and this was the concern of Ibn Abbas. This goes for other companions who supported Mut'a even after the death of Umar, because they were sure that this is a man-made prohibition, and is not issued by Allah, nor by His Prophet (PBUH&HF). Otherwise, if these companions were unsure then they would at least keep silent for the fear of Allah. But the fact is that they knew what they were doing.
   
4. The speeches of the Prophet in Mecca was narrated through different narrators. Why only one narrator, named as Sabra al-Juhanni, had heard these words from the Prophet, and this part of the speech of the Prophet was not narrated by others? It is hardly conceivable that the Prophet could have stood before the Ka'ba in front of a large group of Muslims and ban something until the Day of Resurrection, and that then only one person Sabra should have heard him or related his words.
   
   Moreover, there are discrepancies in the various versions of Sabra's in different Sunni collections of Hadith. In some versions the prohibition is said to have occurred in the year of the victory of Mecca (8 AH), in others in the year of the Farewell Pilgrimage (10 AH). This discrepancy makes the Hadith even more untrustworthy. The version of the Hadith of Sabra which states that the Prophet momentarily permitted Mut'a at the Farewell Pilgrimage in Mecca in the year 10/632, shows another fact. People could not have complained from the separation of their wives during the Farewell Pilgrimage, since all of the wives were present, and the single men could have taken permanent wives in Mecca. This is another proof for absurdity of the allegation that temporary marriage was in the case of battles! This is beside many traditions mentioned above that the companions never mentioned practicing Mut'a was limited to battles, and acknowledged that it was a usual practice up to the end of Umar's rule.
   
5. Another contradiction with the narration of Prohibition of Mut'a in Mecca, is that the Prophet is alleged to have said:

   I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage, and Allah has forbidden?

   The problem is that the sentence is in reverse order based on the alleged narration attributed to Ali that the Prophet have forbidden it. Based on the one of the early references of this article, the Prophet did not allow the temporary marriage when there was no command from Allah. Then the verse was revealed and Allah made it lawful and the Prophet permitted it, then. Based on what was attributed to Ali (mentioned above from Sahih Muslim), it was the Prophet who had forbidden the temporary marriage. So, the sentence, must have been:

   Allah had permitted you and I have forbidden you.

   While this is in reverse order for the narration of Sabra. Why? Does any of them make sense?! How can the Prophet's word and Allah's word contradict each other. It is reported that:

   "The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I did not make anything Halaal except what Allah made Halaal, and I did not make anything Haraam except what Allah made Haraam."

   • Sunni reference: Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v4, p72
   
   Then, how can the Prophet's word and Allah's word contradict each other?
   
6. The other problem with the tradition by Sabra al-Juhanni is that, if Allah has forbidden an Islamic law, he must have revealed some verse(s), or He must have whispered in the ears of the Prophet that the verse of Mut'a is abrogated. Since there is no record that Allah has whispered such important order in the ears of the Prophet, Allah must have revealed a verse about abolishing temporary marriage. Where is the abrogating verse(s)? Also, is it possible that Allah has whispered in the ears of his Prophet PRIVATELY that the verse is abrogated, and the Prophet did NOT tell people when there was no new verse revealed in this regard?
   
   The traditions can not abrogate the existing verses of Quran. Quran is always in higher authority. The traditions are always subject to check with Quran, and if they are found to be in contradiction with Quran, those contradicting traditions are rejected.
   
   More over, the abrogated verse is either deleted from Quran by the Prophet, or if it is present in Quran, there should be another verse revealed at a later time to abrogate the previous one. In other words, the only way to establish that a verse which is present in Quran is abrogated, is to have an abrogating verse which should have been revealed after that verse, since the traditions alone can not abrogate an existing verse of Quran. Since there is no verse revealed after 4:24 abrogating it, it is still in effect.
   
   And there are more problems with these three traditions on forbidding the temporary marriage which will be discussed later. Our humble suggestion is what the Prophet recited when he allowed the Temporary marriage:

   O' those who believe, do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like transgressors. (Quran 5:87)

   This was the verse mentioned in the tradition of Abdullah Ibn Masud about temporary marriage (see the previously-mentioned tradition from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim). What do Sunnis think of the Prophet's intention for mentioning this verse to people? How come temporary marriage is a bad thing for the Sunnis while the above verse of Quran refers it as a "good thing"?

Very interesting topic.We thank Mr Debater for giving us the
opportunity to express our views on Mut'ah.


Adi Irama
Indonesia

[History]

This was what I heard stated today.
And I had never heard of such a thing in Islam before.
This morning while driving to work, I heard a story on Public Radio International about poor Muslim women agreeing/seeking "Muttah marriage" (approved by Islamic law) for a year, amonth, or even a day or less, trading sex for food and money to support themselves and their children.
All nice and legal.
Though there is societal shame associated with this per the women interviewed.

Can someone explain "muttah marriage"?
Both what it is per Islamic law, and how it actually affexts the people involved today?

Respectfully,
History

[Na'eemah]

salam, basically muttah marriage is when 2 people marry each other with the intention of keeping the marriage "temporary" i.e a muttah marriage can even last for a few days. It is forbidden by islamic law, however there are still some muslims who practise this today ( for example they get married on valentines day...and get a divorce the next) astagfrullah.
Thats all i know about it

[Refugee]

salam, basically muttah marriage is when 2 people marry each other with the intention of keeping the marriage "temporary" i.e a muttah marriage can even last for a few days. It is forbidden by islamic law, however there are still some muslims who practise this today ( for example they get married on valentines day...and get a divorce the next) astagfrullah.
Thats all i know about it

Only some shias do this - its not something they have to do - but they have an option to do this - its basically done for exchange for money or boyfriend / girlfriends do this for a temp thing - like if it works out or not -

[Na'eemah]

[QUOTE=Refugee]Only some shias do this - its not something they have to do - QUOTE]
Yeah! ive heard that some shias participate in muttah marriage...its so silly, why dont they jus go and read hadith or an islamic shariah book

[Refugee]

[quote=Na'ima]

Only some shias do this - its not something they have to do - QUOTE]
Yeah! ive heard that some shias participate in muttah marriage...its so silly, why dont they jus go and read hadith or an islamic shariah book

Thats what i tell them - i think they are just lazy - cant be bother with reading i guess

[History]

Thank you for your posts.
It sounds like a shameful practice uncharacteristic in Islam, but I do not wish to prematurely and inappropriately make this judgement.
Why does Islamic law permit this?
What purpose did it/does it serve some particular need in Islamic society?
Can you suggest any references where I can learn more?

Respectfully,
History

[Na'eemah]

[QUOTE=Refugee]

Thats what i tell them - i think they are just lazy - cant be bother with reading i guess

Naa, i think maybe they are selfish, they just want to follow their own desires etc