A question for my Shia-Muslim brothers and sisters.

Society Religion & Philosophy
141

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *

Salam Alaykum

As brother Faisal pointed out, you have been given references and sources to think about and now the question you have to ask yourself is, does Hazrat Umar's ruling of prohibition abrogate the Prophet's Sunnah? If you think as we do that it does not then the conclusion is simple: there is no need to reinstate something which has not been abrogated. No, Hazrat Ali did not punish those contracting Mutah.

I did wish to pick up on some of Ana's comments and extrapolate some of the points Brother Gandalf has already made inshallah next time.
[/QUOTE]

Thats the point i am trying to make... If it something that was practiced during the time of Prophet and Quran testifies that our religon is perfect during the time of the Prophet Mohammad, what right does Umar has to prohibit something that declared halal by Prophet..... Its not that he get wahi's like Prophet.... To me is just implies his disagreement with Quran and Prophet.

142

It does not cease to amaze me, whenever i read shi'ites debating their position on religious issues, they quote from sunni ahadeeth. Yet, they take the sources out of context to support their own arguments.

If they choose to use our books and our ahadeeth, then why do they not understand the text according the way our scholars have understood and explained them? Where are shi'ite ahadeeth? Why don't they use them? Why don't they show us the chain of narration to their ahadeeth, so that they can be verified for their authenticity?

What is most astonishing is that they use these sunni ahadeeth, that are narrated by the Companions, yet the shi'ite scholars disrespect and slander the very same Companions. This is evident from their own books. Then why is it that they try and justify their views by turning to quotes and narrations by those they ridicule?! If the shi'ite scholars make a mockery of the Companions, then how can they use narrations from the very same people to base their Religion upon?! Allaahu yahdeehum!

With respect to the issue of Mut'ah, then Ana and Faisal made some valid points, and in fact Ana explained it very well and provided the relevant evidences showing the prohibition of the practice in Islaam.

The basic principle concerning marriage is that it should be ongoing and permanent. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement.

It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade mut’ah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407]

[quote]
Originally posted by Gandalf:

The Hadith attributed to Ali cannot be authentic, since all Muslims agree that Mut'a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered. So how could Ali have claimed that Mut'a was banned on the Day of Khaibar (close to two years before Mecca's conquest)?!
[/quote]

In answer to the question, Imaam Muslim said in his Saheeh:

Baab Nikaah al-Mut’ah wa bayaan annahu ubeeha thumma nusikha thumma ubeeha thumma nusikha wastaqarra tahreemuhu ilaa Yawn il-Qiyaamah (Chapter on Mut’ah marriage and the statement that it was permitted, then abrogated, then permitted, then abrogated, and this prohibition remains in effect until the Day of Resurrection).

From Iyaas ibn Salamah from his father, who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage (mut’ah) for three nights in the year of Awtaas [after the Battle of Humayn in 8 AH], then he forbade it.” (2499)

From al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah from his father: on the day of the Conquest (of Makkah) the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade temporary marriage (mut’ah) with women. (Saheeh Muslim, 2506)

And also from him (may Allaah be pleased with him): that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah and said: “It is forbidden from this day of yours until the Day of Resurrection, and whoever has given anything [as a dowry] should not take it back.” (Saheeh Muslim, 2509).

[quote]
Originally posted by Gandalf:

Sahih Muslim:

Book 008, Number 3246:

Jabir b. 'Abdullah and Salama b. al-Akwa' said: There came to us the proclaimer of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has granted you permission to benefit yourselves, i. e. to contract temporary marriage with women.

Book 008, Number 3247:

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

[/quote]

Again, the above two narrations explain the temporary allowance for the practice:

[quote]
Originally posted by Hasnain:

From Iyaas ibn Salamah from his father, who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage (mut’ah) for three nights in the year of Awtaas [after the Battle of Humayn in 8 AH], then he forbade it.” (2499)
[/quote]

[quote]
Originally posted by Gandalf:

Sahih Muslim;

Book 008, Number 3243:

Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: We were on an expedition with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and we had no women with us. We said: Should we not have ourselves castrated? He (the Holy Prophet) forbade us to do so He then granted us permission that we should contract temporary marriage for a stipulated period giving her a garment, and 'Abdullah then recited this verse: '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 trangressers" (al-Qur'an, v. 87).

Now, do you want to obey the Allah (swt) and his holy prophet (pbuh) or Umar bin Khattab ?

Sahih Muslim;

Book 008, Number 3250:

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

With regard to those who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1407]

The shi'ites pick and choose ahadeeth to tickle their fancies. This is what i mean, when i say that the sunnis love 'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) far more than the shi'ites. Your disrespect to 'Ali is proven when you disobey him.

The shi'ite (ith-naashariya - Twelvers) scholars do not even consider the Companions as Muslims, but you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others! In future if you wish to use our narrations, then do not take them out of context by following your own whims and desires.

... and Allaah knows best.

143

Great response Hasnain. It is interesting that some shias will always quote from Sahih books when they are trying to prove a particularly controversial topic, and as you said, they will typically pick and choose statements out of context. Ostensibly they say they are quoting from Sahih to show that those who follow Sahih are so ignorant that they don't know whats in Sahih books, but the fact is that understanding a topic is much more than reading some english translation and running away with it.

In this case, in addition to the correct religious/Islamic ruling, the whole thing just just doesn't go with the Islamic way of life. It defies common sense. Some people can come up with all kinds of excuses and hide behind out-of-context quotations, but this whole thing just seems truly against Islam. This is my personal opinion.

144

Brothers;

Firstly, it is amazing that you doubt your own sahih hadiths. It is you who pick and chose from yr own books to support yr claims, not the shias.

Seems like yr sahih books are not as authentic as you claimed as you have contradictory hadiths present in them.

For example, this hadith clearly shows that muta was valid during the times of the holy prophet (pbuh) and Abu Baker:

Book 008, Number 3249:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith

Are you saying that even Jabi b Abdullah did not hear about the prohibition ? Are you telling us that Abu Baker did not know that people were performing mut'a, knowing that muta was prohibited ?

Bottomline, muta cannot be prohibited since there is no verse in the quran that abrogates this verse.

In a famous sermons the second caliph Umar banned Mut'a with the following words: "Two Mut'a were practiced during the time of the Prophet: Mut'a of women and Mut'a of Hajj, but I forbid both of them and will punish anyone who practices either."

References:

Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, commentary of verse 4:24
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

To say that some companions did not know of the prohibition is absurd. For, if we suppose that Mut'a was permitted, then people would need to have knowledge of that fact in their everyday lives, just as they need to have knowledge about the permissibility of marriage. So the legal situation of Mut'a must have been known, just as everyone knew about marriage.

Umar's sermon demonstrates that during the lifetime of the Prophet Mut'a was permitted. The reason Umar attributed the banning to himself is that he wanted to show that he was expressing his own view. If the Prophet himself had prohibited Mut'a, or if its permissibility pertained only to a specific period in time, then Umar would have attributed its prohibition to the Prophet, not to himself. (Majma' al-Bayan, v3, p32).

In general the Shia argue that if Umar's prohibition had been based upon the words of the Prophet, then other Companions would have known about it. How is it possible for the Prophet to have forbidden Mut'a, yet, during the rest of his life, the period of Abu Bakr's caliphate and the beginning of Umar's caliphate, for prohibition to have remained unknown to everyone but Umar? Moreover, if his prohibition were based upon the words of the Prophet, why did he not attribute it to the Prophet instead of to himself?

Don't you think that if muta was forbidden, the prophet (pbuh) would have made sure that everyone was aware of it so that no one would commit zina (as you deem it to be) ?

Bottomline, Umar used his judgement and threat to prevent what Allah (swt) and his prophet (pbuh) have permitted.

145

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hasnain: *

It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade mut’ah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407]

In answer to the question, Imaam Muslim said in his Saheeh:

Baab Nikaah al-Mut’ah wa bayaan annahu ubeeha thumma nusikha thumma ubeeha thumma nusikha wastaqarra tahreemuhu ilaa Yawn il-Qiyaamah (Chapter on Mut’ah marriage and the statement that it was permitted, then abrogated, then permitted, then abrogated, and this prohibition remains in effect until the Day of Resurrection).

[/QUOTE]

Are you telling us that Allah (swt) and his prophet (pbuh) are indecisive ?

So this is the theory that you want to propagate - that muta was permitted and forbidden on and off ?

This probihition was instituted by none other than Umar bin Khattab. And all these theories that you propagate are present to justify his actions.

146

Gandalf.. since mu'tah is considered permissible by shias, so why don't you quote from ahadith books of shia scholars to prove whether mutah is permitted or not.

Also, post their chain of narrators. And also explain whether Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah Anha) permitted mu'tah (since it was never prohibited, according to your posts) during his khilafa?

Since shias do not subscribe to Sahih books anyway, so you should give support from your own books, and not from books you deride. Its simple common sense. Quoting Sahih just means you don't have enough evidence in your own books of ahadith. I am sure thats not the case.

147

**
Book 008, Number 3263:

Ali b. Abi Talib [Radiallaho tala anho] reported that Allah's Messenger (Sallallaho Alaihe Wasallam) prohibited on the Day of Khaibar the contracting of temporary marriage with women and the eating of the flesh of city's asses.
[Saheeh Muslim]

Book 008, Number 3266:

Ali (Radiallaho tala anho) heard that Ibn Abbas (Radiallaho tala anho) gave some relaxation in connection with the contracting of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Don't be hasty (in your religious verdict), Ibn Abbas, for Allah's Messenger (Sallallaho Alaihe Wasallam) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the doing of it-And eating of the flesh of city 's asses.
[Saheeh Muslim]

Book 008, Number 3267:

Ali (Radiallaho tala anho) said to Ibn Abbas (Radiallaho tala anho) that Allah's Messenger (s a w) on the Day of Khaibar forbade forever the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of city's asses.
[Saheeh Muslim]

Narrated Saburah ibn Ma'bad al-Juhani: "The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) prohibited temporary marriage with women. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2068)"

**

148

Is it true that in Pakistan prostitutes ,most of whom belong to a certain sect of Islam justify their dirty profession on the basis of mutah(a one night mutah) ?

149

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Faisal: *
Gandalf.. since mu'tah is considered permissible by shias, so why don't you quote from ahadith books of **shia scholars* to prove whether mutah is permitted or not.

Also, post their chain of narrators. And also explain whether Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah Anha) permitted mu'tah (since it was never prohibited, according to your posts) during his khilafa?

Since shias do not subscribe to Sahih books anyway, so you should give support from your own books, and not from books you deride. Its simple common sense. Quoting Sahih just means you don't have enough evidence in your own books of ahadith. I am sure thats not the case.
[/QUOTE]

Brother Faisal;

I quote authentic sunni hadiths because I do not think that you will give weight to shia sources. I do not think that this is a difficult concept for you to understand. Are you telling me that you will give my arguments serious weight if I quote shia hadiths.

Analyze it; You obviously don't know the difference between prostitution and the rules for mutah, so I will not dignify your comments with a response.

Suffice it is to say that the "best" middle-eastern prostitutes can be found in Egypt, Morocco, .... These are mainly ahl-sunnat prostitutes. So what is the point that you are trying to make. What sunni laws are these women using to make a living ?

No shia scholar will claim shia hadiths to be absolutely authentic. Anything that opposes the quran must be rejected.

If you say that your sahih are completely authentic, then you have lost your arguments because there are contradictory hadiths present in them.

If you use the shia method of judging a hadith, then you have to accept the hadiths showing that muta is allowed and reject all the hadiths that show its prohibition. This because muta is permitted in the quran and there is no verse that abrogates this law.

ws

150

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by analyze it: *
*
Book 008, Number 3263:

Book 008, Number 3266:

Ali (Radiallaho tala anho) heard that Ibn Abbas (Radiallaho tala anho) gave some relaxation in connection with the contracting of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Don't be hasty (in your religious verdict), Ibn Abbas, for Allah's Messenger (Sallallaho Alaihe Wasallam) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the doing of it-And eating of the flesh of city 's asses.
[Saheeh Muslim]

Book 008, Number 3267:

Ali (Radiallaho tala anho) said to Ibn Abbas (Radiallaho tala anho) that Allah's Messenger (s a w) on the Day of Khaibar forbade forever the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of city's asses.
[Saheeh Muslim]

**
[/QUOTE]

Since these hadiths say that on the Day of Khaiber, the prophet (pbuh) prohibited mutah FOREVER, then Hasain's arguments must be rejected that mutah was allowed then prohibited, then allowed, then prohibited, .....

Secondly, mutah was practised in Mecca - 2 yrs after the conquest of Khaiber. As such, the prophet (pbuh) could not have prohibited mutah 2 years in advance - leading to this hadith being false.

Thirdly, I presented the hadith earlier that shows that mutah was practised in the lifetime of the prophet (pbuh) and in the time of Abu Baker.

Enough said.

151

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gandalf: *
Brother Faisal;

I quote authentic sunni hadiths because I do not think that you will give weight to shia sources. I do not think that this is a difficult concept for you to understand. Are you telling me that you will give my arguments serious weight if I quote shia hadiths.
[/QUOTE]

Assalam O Alaikum

Well since your attempt to justify mutah from Sahih books is obviously flawed, as Hasnain explained in his post, and you had merely posted the narrations without understanding their explanation, so you might try to present your own thinking, instead of hiding behind Sahih books.

And you don't quote Sahih books to satisfy anyone, you only quote them to mock them, as is evident from your statement "*Seems like yr sahih books are not as authentic as you claimed as you have contradictory hadiths present in them. *". So give up the charade, and bring proof from your own books.

Whether anyone accepts them or gives them serious weight is for the readers to decide. Your responsibility, if you chose to accept it, is to bring evidence supporting your claim and whether Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) permitting mutah during his khilafah. I am sure Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) is more aware than you are as to what is permitted by the Prophet (Sallalah o Alaihai Wassalam) and what he prohibited from... and Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) was also in a much better position to decide whether what Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) prohibited was within his rights or not.

Thank you.

152

As far as I read it, Brother Gandalf has excelled in answering every single objection raised, from Ahadith, both Sunni and Shia sources. It is sad to see that the only counter argument you could muster up is to whine about quoting from Sunni sources. It shows an immense sense of insecurity in your own thoughts and belief fundamentals not to mention your ignorance. Isn’t it true when you want to present your view to a Christian, you quote and explain your belief by way of verses contained within the Bible? Not in the least because they will not accept the Quran as an impartial source of reference much in the same way Sunnis will not accept Shia references. Even the Quran challenges non-believers to bring forth their own arguments, so to say that “you don’t believe in our books and so you can’t bring arguments from it” is totally irrelevant. So that was a pathetic argument to come up with in the first instance. You are welcome to support YOUR argument against us by giving us references from “our” books.

The discussion of Mutah is very interesting because it shows two totally different thought processes of the two sects. One of these is regarding the hadith literature. Although we have collections of Hadith literature, classical works of 4 books, unlike the Sunnis, we believe it to be what it is: A collection of quotes narrated by a chain of narrators via word of mouth which was eventually collected and written down one or two centuries after the Prophet’s departure from this world, i.e. the collection is word of man. Thus we do not accept ALL of Hadith literature to be Authentic, Sahih and error-free and therefore we do not put it on par with Gods Word, the Quran. It is a forgone conclusion that when you accept ALL of hadith literature to be TOTALLY error free, you believe the hadith transmitters to be Divinely Inspired and Guided which to me sounds pretty much like the claim of some Christians for the Books of Matthew, Luke etc and that’s a dangerous precedent. If you don’t believe that then you will agree with us that within the context of the passage of time, the repression of the era, the political turmoil of that time, the collections of Hadith are not entirely perfect. Since the people who have reported these sayings to us are unfortunately no longer with us and we cannot verify much of the discourses that went on, it is usually a good idea at this time to apply reasoning and logic to the Ahadith to determine for ourselves its “authenticity”. This is the “Shia Way” of looking at Ahadith. It is the practice of Shia Scholars to thoroughly research every Ahadith, its contexts, where it was recorded, in what circumstances, its chain of narrators, their trustworthiness and their backgrounds etc to the minutest detail before it is stated as accepted. Fundamentally any Hadith that contradicts the Quran – our only source of infalliable and Sahih information - is rejected outright. For us there is no such thing as Sunni Hadith or Shia Hadith, if a Hadith doesn’t contradict the Quran, is widely reported in all sources by reliable persons and stands rigour of intellect and reasoning, it is accepted, regardless of the source. The hadith literature is always open to research and interpretation and these efforts continue to this day. So that defuses your point about Shias not accepting “sunni hadith” – we don’t deny the hadith, just state that Hadith should be open to reasoning and logic that God has given us to make use of.

The Hadith attributed to Hazrat Ali from Shia literature, as quoted by Ana, is considered to be weak hadith because there are many more much relaiable hadith about Hazrat Ali being in favour of Mutah as well as Hadith that the Prophet never banned Mutah during his lifetime, but more importantly, the Hadith is dismissed on the basis of the extremely sound reasoning given by Brother Gandalf.

Back to Mutah, Ana’s statements (since she is the only one who has made some counter arguments instead of resorting to slander like our Brother Hasnain), that the “Prophet never allowed nor prohibited Mutah” and “disease” are really defunct here. Ana at one point you agree Mutah was practiced during the Prophets time and then you come out with such ludicrous statements as above only to add to your confusion. Firstly do you really believe that a Prophet who has not left the issue of how to cleanse oneself after going to the toilet for issues of health and hygiene would have left such a “potentially harmful issue of epidemic proportions” as you so willfully claim, unmentioned? Furthermore I am sorry to say your first statement doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. So Mutah was practiced widely in front of the Prophet yet he neither allowed it nor disallowed it? So where does that leave you with your argument of “Mutah isn’t Islamic”? For surely if he didn’t allow it, he didn’t disallow it either, following your line of argument. So what is everyone complaining about?

When something is already being widely practiced, it is simple common sense that you do not have to categorically state you agree with and allow the practice; your silence (supposing the Prophet didn’t mention anything about Mutah) is your acceptance. It is more common to widely and very publicly denounce the practice if you didn’t agree with it and thought of it as an unislamic behaviour especially if you are a Prophet of God and it is your DUTY as a Prophet of God to protect people by explicitly forbidding them from sinning, from potentially hazardous to health situations. Isn’t that so? Thinking that the Prophet would leave to people do as they wish is belittling the character and the Right of Prophethood of the Prophet. Why would we need Messengers if not to tell us implicitly what is wrong and what is right? Isn’t that what is the Message of the Prophets of God, in other words, God’s Message, “to guide us on the right part?

Further you state that Hazrat Umar prohibited Mutah because the father wasn’t giving his due for the child’s upkeep. That shows two things, a) Hazrat Umar prohibited Mutah and NOT the Prophet. That leads to the point we already discussed, does a political ruling overrule that of the Prophets? b) Hazrat Umar wasn’t much familiar with of the rulings of Mutah – instead of banning mutah he should have ordered the father of the child to pay for its upkeep because that is a rule of mutah. Mutah is neither fornication (that means physical relationship between unmarried people) nor adultery it is what it is: namely a marriage of fixed duration. To state otherwise would be insulting to the character of the Prophet and the Sahabas who practiced Mutah.

Lets forget all of the above for a minute and suppose that the Prophet had forbidden Mutah during his lifetime (although there is plenty of evidence to suggest he didn’t), why then did Hazrat Umar have to so publicly denounce and threaten people with punishment?

To me this suggests that simply people were not aware that the Prophet had supposedly forbidden Mutah. Because the majority of people were not familiar with this ruling and had to be coerced by way of punishment to stop the uproar Hazrat Umar’s ruling would have caused, it is safe to conclude that the Prophet had not in fact issued any such ruling, which again is confirmed by the very widely reported Hadith of “Today I have prohibited for you two things…Muta and…that the Prophet had allowed”.

You travel on a very shaky ground when you lose the principles. I look forward to you justifying your viewpoint with some counter arguments, at the very least with something more than “it’s not fair, you can’t quote from our books”. :)

153

Rhia...

Assalam O Alaikum.

I read your whole post, but it didn't include the simple answer I was looking for.

All you needed to do, was post excerpts from your own sources, ahadith literature which is accepted by shia scholars, with the chain of narrators used in Fiqh-e-Jaffaria, and prove that Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) permitted mu'tah during his khilafat. After all, you keep on saying that Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) had no power to abrogate something which Prophet (Sallalah o Alaihai Wassalam) didn't prohibit. So prove your point, using the words and actions of Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah), who became the fourth Ameer-ul-Momineen AFTER the second and the third khalifa. I am sure he knew more than you do.

Jazak Allah.

154

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Rhia...

After all, you keep on saying that Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) had no power to abrogate something which Prophet (Sallalah o Alaihai Wassalam) didn't prohibit. So prove your point
[/QUOTE]

Brother,

Before I post the hadiths, are you telling me that you need convincing of this matter ?

Is this not your fundamental belief as a muslim - that the qur'an is the Word of Allah (swt) - and that no one has the right to abrogate or go against and verse or verses unless it is authorized by Allah (swt) through His holy prophet (pbuh).

The wahi stopped with our last and most supreme prophet (pbuh). As such, the quran became final till the day of judgement. How is it then that someone else can abrogate any part of the holy book.

Can you please explain to me why you think Umar had this supreme right to go against the Allah's (swt) laws ?

Did Umar get some special permission to do this ?

I don't mind answering questions brother. But when you post statements like this, I do not know who I am talking to.

ws

155

What i don't understand is that even if mut'ah was allowed in the time of the prophet it was because of circumstances which arose from war, it was for the men who were away from home fighting for islam it wasn't made permissable for people who wanted to get to know each other better.
what reason do men have now to do this? and the reason that they can go in to mut'ah in order to familiarise themselves with their fiance`s a little better is very lame.
It's like saying it's alright to go out with each other aslong as you've gone in to a contract (mut'ah)
Men seem to twist everything in islam to suit themselves. Now a man does not marry twice to give support to the needy woman it's just to fulfil his desires.
If mut'ah is allowed it does'nt mean that there are circumstances present in todays society which need for muta'h to be practiced.

156

Gandalf, you have given this argument a million times in this thread. That is not getting us anywhere. Instead of beating about the bush, why don't you simply answer the question. I am curious to see how you know more about these matters than Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah). I am really curious.

157

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gandalf: *

Can you please explain to me why you think Umar had this supreme right to go against the Allah's (swt) laws ?
[/QUOTE]

'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah reward him, had every right to remind Muslims of the once and for all prohibition on temporary marriage that the Prophet (s) had ordered. In effect, 'Umar (r) wasn't prohibiting it of his own accord, he only did so because the Prophet (s) had forbidden it. More than one report mentions that 'Umar (r) ascended the pulpit, reminded the congregation that the Messenger of Allah (saws) had prohibited it, and then himself strongly warned against it.

This is recorded in Sunan ibn Majah (#1963), Sunan Sa'id ibn Mansur (as per Kanz al-'Amal #45714), in al-Bayhaqi's Sunan al-Kubra (7:206), and in al-Daraqutni's Sunan (2:257).

Iqbal

158

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Gandalf, you have given this argument a million times in this thread. That is not getting us anywhere. Instead of beating about the bush, why don't you simply answer the question. I am curious to see how you know more about these matters than Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah). I am really curious.
[/QUOTE]

Brother;

You are correct - we are not getting anywhere. I do not think that the brothers/sisters on this thread understand the gist of the arguments presented.

Now, with new people coming on board and posting things which I have already covered, I don't find this discussion fruitful anymore.

As a parting question, I too would like to know how you claim to know more about what Hazrat Ali (as) said. After all, your sources are the same sahih hadiths which have contradictory statements in them. You talk as if what your books supposedly say about Ali (as) is the absolute truth.

Bottomline, the quran has an ayat on mutah. There is no verse that has abrogated it. This automatically voids all yr so called hadiths that claim the prophet (pbuh) prohibited it - whether it was Ali (as) or any of yr sahabahs.

Enough said

ws

159

At no point did I claim to know anything more. You have claimed repeatedly that the statement made by Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) where he talked about punishing anyone who indulges in mu'tah to be an innovation. As such you claim that he had no right to do so. My point is simply that what was the stance of Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) on this issue when he was khalifa.

Just as a matter of principle, I am sure you will agree that Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) knew far more about what is permissible and what is not permissible, compared to you or I or any other scholar of this time. If he felt that Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) had no right to make mu'tah prohibited, surely Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) would have made this issue clear during the period of his khilafa. Please show the evidence from any books (shia or sunni) which describe that Hazrat Ali (Razi Allah Tallah) categorically disagreed with the ruling of Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) with the same argument as you have repeatedly presented in this thread.

Or may be it is as Iqbal said, that Hazrat Umar (Razi Allah Tallah) merely reminded muslims about the prohibition which was prescribed by the Prophet (Sallalah o Alaihai Wassalam) during his life. And mutah must remain prohibited till the day of judgement.

If you have the answer to the query I presented, then feel free to provide it, in a clear, concise and to-the-point manner. If you chose not to, thats ok too.

160

I happened to be reading the website on answering-christianity and came across this answer by a sunni brother on mut’a.

I thought that he took a reasonable stand on muta, as compared to some of us who keep linking mut’a to prostitution:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/temporary_marriage.htm

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 [Having Temporary Marriage in English]). 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.” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah), Volume 7, Book 62, Number 51)”

I personally think that according to all of the narrations above, if the Muslim is living in a Muslim country, then he/she must not be allowed to practice Muta. But if he/she is living in a non-Muslim country and there are very few Muslims available, and marriage is not possible for one reason or another (this condition must exist), then it should not be a sin if he/she practice Muta with other Muslims, because “it is very badly needed and (men and) women are scarce” as mentioned in the above narration and verdict.

Muta is a Marriage. A man can marry up to four wives in Islam, and the woman can only marry one husband. There is a dowry for the man to pay and if children are produced in this Marriage, then it automatically becomes a permanent one. So Muta is far away from being called “legalized prostitution”.

Can a Muslim couple go on a date and have Muta, as Westerners do with their illegal sex without marriage?

Absolutely not! As we clearly saw above, Muta was allowed for very special cases, and it was prohibited to be practiced by the ordinary people. Muta is not a legalization of illegal sex or prostitution. It is important for a person to know this fact very well!

Muta must not exist in Muslim countries what so ever, because there are plenty of Muslim males and females for marriage. As we clearly saw above, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prohibited Muta for ordinary Muslims.

Muta should only be allowed when “it is very badly needed and (men and) women are scarce” as the quote clearly says above. Even in foreign non-Muslim lands, Muslims must be extremely careful with practicing Muta. If a person knows well that he/she have the financial and physical ability to get married, and there are Muslims whom he/she can marry from, then Muta is definitely a sinful act for them, and it would be without a doubt be considered as an adultery or fornication.

If on the other hand, there are very few Muslims, and the sexual intimidation is very high for males and females as it is in the Western countries with their tight and short clothings, to bikinis in beaches, to sometimes having nude and topless beaches, etc…, and the Muslim knows well that he/she can’t get married for financial and other VALID reasons, and Muta was available for them, then in my opinion, Muta marriage is allowed in that special case.

It is very difficult to put a set standard on when Muta can and can’t be practiced. It really all depends on the personal situation of the Muslim. The Muslim, however needs to be very responsible and very honest toward Allah Almighty. A person can fool others with his/her lies to convince people, but they certainly can not fool their Almighty Creator.

And Allah Almighty knows best about our intentions and deeds.