So in other words you are saying that ppl at Holy prophet(SAW) time were all animals???Astagfirallah, Damn and Damn U R destined to hell, Take it as warranty
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/biggrin.gif
You look shaitan and you pour out also shaitaniat. take it easy.
Watcher kuch sharam karo. Aisa kehnay say pehlay soch liya karo baywaqoof insaan.
Mm, that is WHAT YOU are saying. That is what you want others to believe that I said.
I am discussing this issue in 2001 not in 630 AD. I am discussing with YOU guys, not with people who lived 1400 years ago. I am discussing this issue in the light of todays events NOT what happened 1400 years ago.
I am calling those animals who still commit this acts of prostitution and ruin lives of others even though Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) has asked us NOT to perform this act because ALLAH has made it illegal, haram for us. YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT that instead of putting words in my mouth. You should worry about following what ALlah says in QUran about this issue and what Sunnah says about this issue.
Instead you come here and show me your true side: YOu want to commit this idiotic act, and use other girls for your personal sexual pleasure for 10 mins, 10 hours or 10 days. That is just a shame.
Would you like someone doing mut'ah with your sister/mother???
*V~V~V*He came, He saw, He conquered*V~V~V*
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
"Nay! We hurl truth against falsehood, so it destroys it: and behold, falsehood is vanquished..."Quran, al-Furqaan 25:33 ]
Watcher and Amigo;
Your posts have again demonstrated the shallowness of your thoughts and lack of understanding of the holy Qur'an and the sunnat of the holy apostle (pbuh). You have again resorted to hiding behind the garb of quoting quranic ayats without comprehending their meanings nor looking to examine the relevancy of the ayats that you quote.
Your knowledge is devoid of Islamic law, your behaviour childish. You come to a conclusion and then find proofs for your beliefs, rather than understand the facts and then draw conclusions.
For the sake of clarity, and in order not to overwhelm the limited interlect of the wahabi community on this site, I will break my posts into several sections, lest you use the length of the post as an excuse to shy away from the truth.
Amigo;
You must be naive to think that your post contains anything new which sunni opponents have not used for the last 1400 years regarding mut'a. Yet, when proof is presented to them, they run from the topic or cry foul. Your conclusion that no ayat is present in the Qur'an to support mut'a has once again exposed the fallacy of your ways.
For those who are not familiar with the concept of mut'a, and the sunni point of view, I will briefly state their position.
Some Sunnis argue that sexual intercourse is forbidden except with one's wife or a slave by
reason of the following verse:
"Prosperous are the believers ... who guard their private parts save from
their wives and what their right hands own." (23:14).
At this juncture, I would like to state that this is a Meccan verse, meaning that the ayat was revealed before the holy apostle's (pbuh) migration to Medina.
Now, first let's expose one of Amigo's false beliefs that states that the Qur'an does not support mut'a.
In the chapter titled "Women", after listing those women to whom marriage is forbidden, the
Quran states as follows:
"Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may seek, using your
wealth, in wedlock and not in license. So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their
appointed wages; it is no fault in you in mutually agreeing after fulfillment (of the wage). God is
All-Knowing, All-Wise" (4:24).
Shia scholars and many Sunni scholars hold that this verse -
especially the words: "Such woman as you enjoy (Istamta'tum)" - refers to the permissibility of
Mut'a.
Amigo, didn't you say that the word "Istamta'tum" is not referred to in the Qur'an. Well, here it is.
There are several arguments to prove this point. If you want references, you can refer to your own sunni references such as Sharh al-Lum'a, v5, p248-253; Jawahir, v5, p163.
Please note that this verse was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet's stay in Medina. Therefore, this verse came AFTER the verse quoted by Amigo and company.
By the revelation of this verse, the temporary marriage became a legal custom in Medina and was looked upon as
one kind of marriage and was referred to by the term Istimta'a, the same word employed in the
Quranic verse - even though the literal meaning of the word is "to seek benefit" or "to take
enjoyment".
Hence the meaning of the Quranic verse must be understood in terms of the
conventional usage of the time, for as is well-known in the science of Quranic commentary and
Islamic jurisprudence, the Quran follows the conventional usage of the people in all edicts and
legal prescriptions.
If someone wants to understand a word in the Quran in other than the
conventional meaning of the time, he must supply a strong reason for doing so.
Moreover if one
looks up the traditions of the chapter of temporary marriage in the authentic Sunni collections
such as Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, one can see that the messenger of Allah and his
companions exactly used the word Istimta'a when referring to this contract, which is exactly the
same word as what Quran employed.
My question to the people, who believe Mut'ah is right, is would they allow their sisters or daughters to get married for a temporary period.
Now, the entire jist of the sunni argument relies on the fact that the ayat on mut'a was abrogated (cancelled) by the Meccan ayat.
They use hadiths like the following to support their views:
According to the Prophet's wife Aisha and others: 'Mut'a is forbidden and abrogated in the Quran
where God says: "who guard their private parts..."
(al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Quran, by al-Qurtubi, v5, p130).
The Sunni argument continues by pointing out that without question a woman enjoyed through
Mut'a is not a slave. Nor is she a wife, for several reasons: if she were a wife, she and her husband would inherit from each other, since God says: "And for you a half of what your wives
leave..." (4:12).
But everyone agrees that Mut'a does not involve inheritance. If she were a wife,
the child would belong to the husband, since according to the Prophet: "The child belongs to the
bed." But again this is not the case from the sunni perspective.
And finally, if she were a wife, it would be necessary for her
to maintain the waiting period, since this is commanded by God (2:234); but this also is not the
case with nut'a, the sunnis say.
[quote]
Originally posted by khan_sahib:
My question to the people, who believe Mut'ah is right, is would they allow their sisters or daughters to get married for a temporary period.
[/quote]
Khan;
Firstly, it is not for people to question Allah (swt)'s verdicts and the sunnat of the holy apostle (pbuh). If the holy prophet (pbuh) did not question it, may I ask who you think you are to question it ?
And sunnis like yourself should attempt to get a better understanding of mut'a.
A mut'a marriage does not have to involve sexual relationships. This can be stated in the contract agreement. As such, mut'a can be used by the man and woman as a method of familiarizing themselves with each other before committing each other to a long term relationship. And they do this by the permission of the Almight (swt).
We live in a muslim society that forgives fornication more readily than a permissible Islamic act.
Let's say a father has a daughter who if not married will commit
the sin of fornication, but no one has come forward to ask her hand in long term marriage -
whatever the reasons maybe. Would he give her to some known pious person who asks for
temporary marriage (if it is proved to be the Sunnah of the Prophet), or would he risk her committing
fornication. I am sure many can think of other circumstances.
This does not even address the
issue from the man's perspective - students in foreign countries who do NOT wish to marry
permanently from People of the Book (Ahlul Kitab). And what about the possibility of turning the foreign wife to
a Muslim and Da'wa (call to Islam) to her family, etc.
Understand the valid reasons behind each of Allah (swt)'s commandments before drawing your own pre-disposed sick conclusions.
To Watcher, prostitution is all that comes to mind. You sunnis are no different that the non-muslims who use similar logic to make fun of muslims permitted to marry 4 wives.
Just as marriage to 4 wives has its own reasons, so does mut'a.
Although Islam intends to revolve the culture of
people, as a result of tendencies and ignorance in many countries dominated by Muslims, the
culture affected the Islamic teachings, while it is supposed to be the other way around.
One should be able to discriminate between the true teachings of a divine religion like Islam, and a
culture.
Later, I will go into why the belief held by sunnis that verse 23:14 abrogated verse 4:24 cannot be held true and what the Islamic laws say are the rights of women married in Islam.
This last point is worth exploring since sunnis say that a mut'a marriage does not have the rights of a normal wife. The idea is to see if this is really the case.
Marriage is contract of union between the husband and wife; sometimes this relation is done in the permanent manner without any limits or boundaries mentioned in the marriage contract, and other times the same relation is formed in essence, but only during a limited span of time with a specified duration. Both these marriages are considered legal and the only difference between them being that one is temporary, while the other one is permanent with a few similarities between them.
The following conditions are as creditable in the temporary marriage as is with the permanent one.
Both the man and woman should not be legally prevented with kinship, among other legal formalities or else the marriage contract can be nullified.
The dowry accepted by both sides should be compromised in the marriage contract.
The period of marriage ought to be specified.
The legal contract should be formalized.
The child born out of this marriage is their legal child and should be named after the parents.
The child is dependent on his father and the procedure of inheritance is also valid for him and is considered his legal right.
When the period of this marriage terminates, and if it happened that the woman has not reached the stage of menopause, she should consider the waiting period ‘Eddah’ before entering into another marriage contract, and likewise if she is pregnant, she should also refrain form getting married until she gives birth.
Other rules that regard the permanent marriage should also be regarded in the temporary marriage. The only difference being that since the temporary marriage is legislated to overcome the necessities, the wife’s maintenance is not upon the husband and if the woman does not stipulate the right to inherit her husband’s property in the marriage contract, she will not be able to inherit it in the long run. Thus it is quite obvious that these two differences have no such effect regarding the essence of Marriage itself.
We all believe that the Islamic religion is of the universal kind that fulfills all the needs of mankind. Now let us consider the case of a young man who needs to stay in a foreign country in order to continue his studies and because of the restricted facilities, he is unable to have a permanent marriage thus, he is in a traumatic state and there lie three possibilities before him that are;
To remain single.
To fall in the pollution of corruption,
To marry a woman legally for a temporary period in the framework of the above-mentioned conditions for the temporary marriage contract.
Let us ponder over these three conditions:
Regarding the first case, one can say that it usually proves to be unsuccessful because even though some can endure not having sexual inter-course, but it can be rather difficult for everyone to refrain themselves due to the cause of mental disturbance.
As for the second case, it’s end is nothing but doom and wretchedness and according to Islam, regarded as prohibited! And considering it to be ideal for allowing it because of its necessity, is but a deviation of thought, when there could be a better and purer way, which leaves us with the best choice to opt for, that is the third way.
Therefore, it is only the third method left to be chosen, which Islam suggests, and this was also practiced during the Prophet’s lifetime, then later on, dispute arose in the matter and was nullified by the caliph’s of the time.
Let us remind ourselves at his point, of the following:
The ones who fear getting involved in the temporary marriage considering it as illegal, should realize that all the Islamic scholars and researchers have accepted something that is similar to it in the permanent marriage contract; and that is the couple who are involved in permanent marriage, their contract is valid even if it be on the grounds of them having an intention of divorce in more or less than an year.
It is obvious that such a marriage is apparently permanent though in reality it is temporary what with their intention. This type of permanent marriage differs from that of the temporary one in that the latter is limited for a certain period of time both apparently and in reality, whilst the former is apparently permanent but in reality, temporary.
Thus how could it be so that the ones who are all for the permanent marriage that is widely accepted by the scholars, fear the permissibility of the temporary one?
Now that we have gotten acquainted to the essence of the temporary marriage, let us prove of its legality,
The legality of the temporary marriage at the beginning of Islam.
The non-abrogation of this religious command during the time of the Messenger of God.
Then again, the obvious clue to its being legal, is stated in the verse of the Holy Qur`an such as:
“…. Then as those whom you profit by, give them their wages as appointed..”
This verse gives witness to the validity of temporary marriage because
Firstly, the phrase, ‘estimation- profit by, and enjoy’ is used here, which is apparently regarded for the temporary marriage; if at all this meant the permanent marriage, then there was no indication needed.
Secondly, the phrase, ‘ujoorahunna’ is used in order to portray the meaning ‘wage’ which is a clear evidence in itself for ‘muta’, because in the case of permanent marriage, words such as ‘dowry’ and ‘sadaqa-nupital gift’ is used to substantiate it.
Thirdly, Both the Sunni and Shia interpreters agree that the above-mentioned verse was revealed for the temporary marriage.
Jalal Al-deen Al-Soyuti in his book ofcommentary ‘Al-dor Al-Manthoor’ narrates from Ibn-Jareer and Soddi that the above verse was regarding ‘muta’
Abu-Ja’afer Muhammed bin Jareer Tabari in his commentary narrates from Soddi, Mujahid and Ibn Abbas that this verse regards the temporary Marriage.
Fourthly, The owners of Sahah, Masaneed and other comprehensive books of narration accept to this fact; for instance Muslim bin Hajjaj in his ‘Sahih’ narrates from Jabir bin Abdulla and Salamah bin Akwa who said: “The Prophets call has reached to us saying: God’s messenger has given the permission to ‘enjoy’, meaning temporary marriage.”
The authentic narrations for this topic are innumerable. Consequently, the principle of legislating ‘muta’ in the early Islam and at the time of the Holy Prophet, is accepted by the Muslim scholars and interpreters.
The question arises as to, ‘was the verse of ‘muta’ abrogated?
It was quite occasional to find anyone still doubting the permissibility of ‘muta’ during the time of the messenger of Allah; The point of discussion lies in the continuation or the abrogation of this command after the time of the Prophet.
Both the tradition and the history of Islam, mention to the fact that the practice of this divine commandment was common among the Muslims until the time of the second caliph who, because of public interests, made a stop to the practice.
Muslim bin hajjaj in his ‘sahih’ (book of valid narrations) narrates that Ibn-Abbas and Ibn-Zubair had a disagreement regarding ‘muta’ and the ‘muta of pilgrimage’.
Jabir bin Abdullah said:
“We practiced both during the time of God’s messenger, then Omar prevented us from this practice such that we did not resume to the practice.”
Jalal Al-deen Al-Soyuti in his commentary narrates from Abdul-Razaq and Ibn-Jareer, both of them narrating from Hakim, asked him,
“Was this verse of muta’ abrogated?”
He replied,
“No”,
and Ali (p) had said:
“If it was not for Omar prohibiting the practice of muta, no one except for the wretched would commit adultery.”
Ali bin Muhammed Qushchi also said,
“Omar bin Al-Khattab ascended the pulpit and said:
“O people, there are three things that existed during the time of the Prophet that I now forbid it’s practice, and I punish the one who practices them, these are, ‘Muta of women’, ‘Muta of pilgrimage’ and ‘Haya ala Khairil amal’
It is imperative to mention that the narrations similar to these kind are more than can be mentioned.
It is important to point out the fact that ‘muta’ is one of the divisions of marriage, because marriage is divided into temporary and permanent, thus the woman in the temporary marriage contract is the wife of that person and her spouse is considered to be called her ‘husband’ so naturally, such a marriage is definitely included in the verses that state about the rules concerning marriage, and if the Qur`an states that,
“And who guard their private parts except before their mates and whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blamable.”
The wife in the temporary marriage is as the example states, “….except for their mates…” according to the framework of the previously mentioned conditions. So it is matter-of-fact that the wife in this marriage is included in the phrase of “their mates.” Therefore, if the above verse of sura Mominun permits the sexual relation for two groups of women being the wife and the slave girl, then the woman in the temporary marriage is obviously of the first group. (i.e, wives.)
It is quite surprising to hear that the mentioned verse in Sura Mominun abrogated the verse in sura Nisa, whilst we all know that the verse abrogated, ought to be revealed before the abrogated one, however, it is the opposite in this case where sura Mominun is considered as the abrogated verse revealed in Mecca before the migration of the Prophet to Madina and the sura Nisa having the verse regarding muta was revealed in Madina, and so how can a ‘Macci’ sura abrogate a verse in a ‘Madani sura’?
Another evidence that testifies the non-abrogation of the verse of ‘muta’ during the time of the Prophet are the enormous traditions denying to the annulment of this practice at the time of the messenger, such as the previously mentioned narration by Jalal Al-deen Soyuti in ‘Al-dor Al-Manthoor’
Last but not least, let us remind ourselves of this point, and that is the fact that the family of the household, our revered Imams themselves, who according to the narration of ‘Thaqalain’, caused the nation’s guidance, and will never separate from the holy Qur`an, have out rightly declared to the permissibility and authorization of temporary marriage.
Thus Islam is ready and able to solve all the problems of the human society at large, and so approves the authorization of such a marriage by regarding the previously mentioned conditions due to the fact that one of the methods of rescuing the youths from falling in the pit of corruption is only solved by the purest method, which is temporary marriage in the frame work of its special conditions of course.
(Nisa: 24)
Al-dor Al-Manthoor vil.2 p.140 following the mentioned verse.
Jame Al-Bayan fi Tafseer Al-Qur`an, vol.5 p.9
Sahih Muslim, vol4 p.130, printed in Egypt.
For example, some of the references are the following:
Sahih Bukhari Bab Al-Tamatto.
Masnad Ahmad, vol4 p.436 and vol. 3 p.356
Al-Muwata (Malik) vol. 2 p. 30
Sunan Al-Bihaqi vol. 7 p. 306
Tafseer Al-Tabari vol.5 p. 9
Nehayat Ibn-Atheer, vol. 2 p. 249
Tafseer Al-Razi, vol. 3 p. 201.
Tareekh Ibn-Khalakan, vol.1 p. 359
Ahkam Al-Qur`an (Jasas) vol.2 p. 178
Muhazirat Raqib, vol. 2 p. 94
Al-Jame Al-Kabeer (Soyuti) vol. 8 p. 293
Fath Al-Bari (Ibn-Hajar) vol. 9 p. 141
Sunan Al-Baihaqi, vol. 7 p. 206 and Sahih Muslim, vol.1 p. 395
Al-dor Al-Manthoor, vol. 2 p. 140, following he verse of Muta.
Sharh Al-Tajreed (Qushchi), subject of Imamat, p. 484
For more information, refer to the following:
Masnad Ahmad, vol. 3 p. 356, 363.
Al-bayab wal- Tabyeen (Jahiz), vol.2 p. 223
Ahkam Al-Qur`an (Jasas) vol. 1 p. 342
Tafseer Al-Qurtubi, vol. 2 p. 370.
Al-Mabsoot (Sarakhsi Hanafi), kitab Al-hajj, Bab AL-Qur`an.
Zad Al-Ma’ad (Ibn Qayem) vol. 1 p. 444
Kanz Al-Amal, vol. 8 p. 293
Masnad Abi Dawud Al-tayalesy, p. 247
Tareekh al- Tabari, vol. 5 p. 32
Al-Mustabeen (Tabari)
Tafseer Razi vol. 3 p. 200-202
Tafseer Abu Hayyan vol. 3 p. 218
(Mominun: 5-6)
Al-dor Al-Manthoor, vol. 2 p. 140-141 following the verse of Muta.
Wasa’il Al-Shia vol. 14, Kitab Al-Nikah, bab Al-Muta, 1st bab, p. 436
CHEERS
.
[This message has been edited by Pagluu (edited February 17, 2001).]
the funny thing is that alot of the muslim guys that i know go around havin casual sex but they are so against mutah..really interesting u know
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
thanks paglu and a1shah for providing the detailed answers
** Success is a Choice **
[This message has been edited by Sheraz CT (edited February 17, 2001).]
Khan Sahib, I asked the same question, but heedless people will only follow their desires and will twist and mock the sunnah and command of ALlah by saying it WAS allowed before allah made it illegal. They will never listen. I been through this like 5 times already and same BS.
Told you they will post the long cut’n’ paste BS.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Amigo, forget about em…
V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
**“Nay! We hurl truth against falsehood, so it destroys it: and behold, falsehood is vanquished…”**Quran, al-Furqaan 25:33 ]
I am damn busy now a days as its my vacation, I will answer you later on for this
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/wink.gif
Take care and use commonsense, which I think you mentioned in one of your post but you yourself don’t use it, and mind your language, then you start babbling and complainig to admin when I do something.
Yeah, I ask a question and you are on vocation now.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
Its a yes or no question, i don’t need a damn lecture from you. I will be waiting…
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
V~V~VHe came, He saw, He conqueredV~V~V**
----*High Priest-OF-Painful Truth*----
**“Nay! We hurl truth against falsehood, so it destroys it: and behold, falsehood is vanquished…”**Quran, al-Furqaan 25:33 ]
Amigo, Do you still consider your post to be the final post on Muta. Period.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
BTW Shia ppl have tried the best to defend mutah but avoid the personal question about muta by Khan Sahib and Watcher.
I wonder what the diffenence will it make to the debate even if they say yes.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/confused.gif
Belief is not what mind possesses, it is what possesses the mind!
(HH)
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Excuse me Watcher and Analyze it;
Response to Khan has been posted above. I see that you have conveniently avoided the response and now resort to the same all repetitive rhetoric.
For you the sunnis, your burden of proof now lies on proving that Mut’a, which was permitted by the holy apostle (pbuh), is NOW NOT PERMITTED.
It’s sad to say that you have no knowledge on when each ayat was revealed and what the implications are.
Let me ask you this - can you state all the special cases, that Islam permits regarding inheritance for one’s wife ?
Give it some thoughts.
(HH)
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
Now, your sunni arguments lie around the fact that the quranic verse on mut’a, verse 4:24 stated earlier, was abrogated by verse 23:14, put forward by Amigo.
As for the ‘abrogation’ of the verse concerning Mut’a, historical considerations show that this can not be the case. The verse mentioned as abrogating Mut’a was revealed in Mecca before the migration, while the verse establishing Mut’a was revealed after the Prophet had emigrated to Medina. But a verse which abrogates another verse must have been revealed after it, not before it.
It is also well-known that the Prophet allowed the companions to practice Mut’a in Medina, and if Mut’a had already been illegalized in Mecca (before Hijra) by Quran, then the Prophet would not have allowed his companions to practice it after the migration.
You see Watcher, just coming out with baseless conclusions is not the way of proving your point.
I suggest that you work on something simple, such as perming your hair, instead of debating on Islamic jurisprudence.
Now prove to us that the verse 4:24 in the qur’an is now invalid.
The banning of mut’a is one of the many innovations introduced by the Master of Innovators, Umar bin Khattab.
Yes Watcher, forget about them. When you have no knowledge to prove your false beliefs, forget about the truth but bring up the same topic a few weeks later.