Its amazing how sunnis would go on giving names to the practices of islam... just to slam shiasm.... They go to the extend of calling it prostitution... but what gets me .. fine you have an ayat of Quran talking about it and several hadith that blames their so called second khaleefa forbidding the act in their own books... and they bring up one hadith that contradicts the teaching of Quran and other hadith's of their own book... ok..considering thats only fine...
The fact that they call this practice prosititution which ofcouse its alot different....i been based on haqooq, right it protects what so ever.. Its Allah who knows the best but since these people with smart brains calls this activity of islam prositition.. I have one question for all you ALIMS OUT THERE... ARE YOU GUYS SAYING NAUZUBILLAH WAT PROSTITUTION ALLOWED AND PRACTICED IN ISLAM??????
Since you guyz are smart enough to give real world names to islamic practices.. I have another question I think I have asked before but no one bothered to answer... What do you guyz call the act of respecting Hajr-e-Aswad... its a stone... why do we respect it so much.. I want to see how far your brains can go naming the activities allowed in islam to which Allah knows the best.
u should know that ijtehad is only closed in sunni school of thought but its not the same with shias....we have tons and tons of hadiths from Prophet Mohummad (pbuh&up) and Holy Imams (a.s.)...bihar ul anwar for example is one of our hadith books..if you read it you will see the author only collected hadiths and he says himself that don't believe every hadith to be true...now if you see a hadith from Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.) that does not mean its actually an authentic hadith..this is a job for our ulema...so if you really were curious about some hadith and wanted to know you could send a message to Ayutullah Sistani...address is www.sistani.org
thanks
Ibn Sadique
If you have’nt read the preface of the above books, I would recommend you to do so. None of their Author claim that all the those traditions written in those books are 100 % authentic and Sahih like the authors of Sihah Sitah.
For example, If you read the preface of Sahih Bukhari and the Biography of Ismail Bukhari you would found claims like followings:
A muslim needs only two books for his guidence, One is the book of Allah i-e Quran and second is book Of Allah’s Prophet (s), which is written by Ismail bukhari i-e Sahih Bukhari. These two books would sufice him for the whole life. There is nothing better then these two books.
Bukhari saw Rasulallah (s) several time in his dreams giving him glad tidings for the “Sahih” work he is doing.
If a man carries Sahih Bukhari with him in a boat or Ship, Then by the Barakah of this book that ship would never sink.
there are a lot other things written in the Preface of Sahih Bukhari claiming that this is the most authentic book after Quran. In fact they are Lazim o Malzoom.
On the other hand we shia dont hold books like Al-Kafi, Bihaar Al-Anwar 100% authentic. In fact if you knew the history of these books and how the traditions were gathered, then I am sure you would’nt have brought up thoses references you posted above. Al-Kulayni writes in his book:
Nobody is able to distinguish between one and the other tradition received from the Imams (A) except with the guidance of an Imam (or the rule laid down by an Imam). There are three ways to do this
**(1) Compare a tradition with the Quran. if it is contrary to the Quran, reject it. **
**(2) A tradition that is reported on the basis of a popular belief, do away with it. (3) A tradition that is generally accepted, select it, for unanimity is undisputable. Aecording to this rule, only a few traditions ean be specified (as authentie). In the matter of traditions that are conilieting, the easiest way is suggested by the Imam (A), i.e. any one of the two you are free to choose. **
The number of traditions in al-Kafi is 15,181. according to another reckoning 15,176. If the traditions reported in different sections are counted, the number is over 1,000 more. Of the basic traditions, 5,072 are considered sound (sahih)by scholars, i.e. first category; 144 are regarded as good *(hasan), *second category; 178 are held to be trustworthy *(muwaththaq), *third category; 302 are adjudged to be strong *(qawi), *fourth category; and 9,484 are considered weak (da’if),fifth category.
So how can a book be 100% authentic if more then half of its content (traditions) is da’if.
you posted traditions from Imam Jafer Al-Sadiq (a) that mut’a is forbidden. Following are the traditzions from the same book:
Imam Ja’far Sadiq (AS) said: “Mut’a was approved by the text of the Quran and became part of the Sunnah of the Prophet.” (Wasa’il al-Shia, v14, p437).
Imam Ja’far considered the Quranic verse referred to above (4:24) the basis for Mut’a. He said: “The verse proves the permissibility of Mut’a.” **(Wasa’il al-Shia, v14, p439). **Once Abu Hanifa, the founder of one of the four Sunni sects (who was a student of the Imam Ja’far before he starts his business), asked the Imam about Mut’a. He replied: “Which of the two Mut’a do you mean?” Abu Hanifa answered: "I have already asked you about the Mut’a of the Hajj. So tell me about the Mut’a of marriage." The Imam said, “Glory be to God! Have you not read the Quran? ‘So those of them whom you enjoy, give to them their appointed wages’ (4:24).” (Wasa’il al-Shia, v14, p437).
How can a book contain anti and Pro mutah traditions at the same time?? Means either the tradtions are not authentic or they were misquoted.
LOL, Chachcha Ghalib ka she’r hai " Dil ko Khush rakhney ko Ghalib yeh kheyal Achah hey" keep living in fantasy land
Off course we believe in his is infallibility. And that is the reason that he could never go against what Quran says. Are those words you quoted really from Imam (a)? Whos says so? Al- Kafi? Is Al-Kafi 100% authentic like “Sahih” Bukhari?? Off course not!
Rasulallah (s) said "If you found any hadith which is contrary to quran, throw it on the wall. And Mut’ah was revealed in the Quran and no verse was revealed after it, which abrogated it. (even sunni scholars admit it)
In quran we read:
“He (Allah) has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you” (Quran 6:119)
can you bring me any single ayah that explians or show that mutah is forbidden??
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
how could Prophet of Allah (swt) make anything harram with out Allah’s order??
In the end, heres a little advise from quran:
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)
You can gladly do it. I am sure by deleting this post (hiding the truth), the mods would do you a pretty big favor.
(this post is saved and uploaded to another server for record and future references)
here you go guys… feel free to continue with your ‘within context’ refutation…
translating 4:24 as “when you have contracted temporary marriage” is your preference… few Qur’an translators would agree
repetition… this is the report of Imran bin Hussain already clarified in this thread… it is not about mutah marriage but about mutah of Hajj… clearly evidenced by Imran bin Hussain’s same narration in Sahih Muslim where he says, “mutah al Hajj”… (see the English translation Vol.2, hadith 2826-2831)…
the fact that some individuals were unaware of the prohibition doesn’t cancel out the positive knowledge of its forbiddance on the part of other companions (by the way, this report doesn’t at all prove that Abu Bakr himself approved of or was aware of the fact that some individuals were still practising mutah)… three positions are reported from Ibn Abbas on mutah marriage: (1) it is allowed absolutely; (2) it is permitted only under certain circumstances; (3) it is forbidden absolutely… and as already mentioned in this thread, what Umar in fact did was to remind or alert those unaware of the prohibition that the Prophet (saw) had already forbidden mutah marriage: Umar ascended the pulpit, praised and gloried Allah, and then said: “It does not become of men to participate in mutah marriage since Allah’s Messenger (saw) prohibited it and if i come across anyone marrying that way i will stone him.” (al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al-Kubra 7:206)
see Ibn Sadique’s earlier comment on this… as for the school of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, “The four Sunni schools of law all agree that temporary marriage is invalid” is what it says in the link posted by masterofall240
those companions unaware of the eventual prohibition were informed by those who were… as for Asma’s report (assuming it is authentic), few here are saying that mutah was never practised, the point is that it was finally declared haram
nikah al mutah is batil as the heading says
not really… Ibn Kathir said in commentary to 4:24 after mentioning Mujahid’s opinion that the verse related to nikah al mutah: “however, the majority disagree with that”… and al Alusi said in Ruh al Ma’ani in commenting on the same verse, “the saying that it was revealed about mutah is wrong”
repetition
the suggestion here is to take verse 4:24 which currently reads in the Qur’an “seeing that you derive benefit from them, give them their dowries…” and approve a variant reading with additional words so the verse becomes, “seeing that you derive benefit from them for a prescribed period, give them their dowries…”
suffice to say that the master Qur’an commentator, al Tabari (see the third reference above), rejected the validity of this variant reading… we see here also from Tafsir al Baghawi (the first reference above) the author indicating that Ibn Abbas may have recanted on his view concerning mutah marriage
again, not everyone here is saying that mutah was never permitted, the point is that it was finally declared haram
wrong… Umar himself said the Prophet (saw) had already forbidden it
no comment is given on the authenticity of its chain of transmission… in any case it contradicts the authentic narration cited right after this report in Tafsir al Kabir in which Ali mentions that the Prophet (saw) had prohibited it
it says right after this quote in Tafsir al Kabir that Umar’s proclamation was delivered in a gathering of companions and none objected to what he said… it has already been mentioned that Umar ascribed the prohibition to the Prophet (saw)
with a weak chain of transmission as the linked scan clearly shows
In Fath al Bari, Ibn Hajr cites the Maliki scholar Ibn Abdul Barr to the effect, “The companions of Ibn Abbas from Makkah and Yemen permitted it, thereafter the jurists from all locations concurred that it is forbidden.”
all Ibn Hajr did was reproduce a quote on this from Ibn Hazm (see the next point below) and then said “Ascribing (this view) to all of them should be looked into”… and he gives some details on this
this is the quote from Ibn Hazm that Ibn Hajr earlier cited and advised that it be investigated… naturally, when there are differing views one is obliged to consider the evidence and of course the Prophet’s (saw) established prohibition takes precedence
In fact that’s what Imam Jaffar (ra) said. See the narration below:
In Bihaar Al-Anwar, Vol. 100, P. 318, Ja’far Al-Sadiq says about Mutah in a narration by Hisham bin Al-Hakam: “Only the prostitutes do it”
On the same page, Ja’far Al-Sadiq says in a narration by Abdallah bin Sinan: “I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about Mutah. He said: “Don’t defile yourself with it””
In the Furuu’ of Al-Kafi (Vol. 2, P. 48), we read the following clear-cut prohibition of Mutah by Ja’far al-Sadiq: “Mutah has been prohibited for you”
See how the author of al-Kafi Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulaini prefaces his book:
“…You wanted to have a book which would be sufficient (for your religious needs) (kafin), which would include all kinds of knowledge ('ilm) of religion, which would be adequate for the student, and to which the teacher might refer. Thus it could be used by anyone who wanted knowledge of religion and of legal practice ('amal) according to sound traditions (athar) from the truthful ones (the Imams) …”
It means that one is not in need of another book and Al-Kafi is sufficient. He would only say this if he believed that he has written in there is true.
I am quite sure that there is another narration from a top Aalim among the Shia that on completion Al-Kafi was presented to the 12th Imam and after examining it the Imam gave his seal of approval by saying: “al-Kafi is sufficient of our Shia (followers)."
texan, seems like this is one of ur favourite rituals, u r certainly passionate about it and are determined to prove this sick thing as halal. just wondering how many mut'ahs have u done so far? enlighten us with some personal experiences. i'd really like to know what goes on in the minds of ppl like u who practice it and how muslim-like u feel when are practicing this sick ritual?
Whatever, thats you opinion. Actually you were so eager to copy n paste the above text that you failed to notice what he has written on the next pages.
He Writes:
You have brought to my notice that the meaning of the traditions were difficult for you to understand due to the contlicting records in various books, and it was even more difficult to ascertain whether differences arose because of difference in the reasons and motives; you also complained of having no access to a reliable scholar (of Islamic sciencest with whom through dialogue and discussion you could arrive at a conclusion, neither you had any book that could cover all the branches of
'ilm e Din to save a seeker of truth from the labour of referring to many books and which could suffice as a guide and source of spiritual light in the matters of theology and the traditions of the rightly guided true Imams (A). You expressed urgent need of such a book, and I hope that the present book would serve this purpose … Nobody is able to distinguish between one and the other tradition received from the Imams (A) except with the guidance of an Imam (or the rule laid down by an Imam). There are three ways to do this (1) Compare a tradition with the Quran. if it is contrary to the Quran, reject it. (2) A tradition that is reported on the basis of a popular belief, do away with it. (3) A tradition that is generally accepted, select it, for unanimity is undisputable. Aecording to this rule, only a few traditions ean be specified (as authentie). In the matter of traditions that are conilieting, the easiest way is suggested by the Imam (A), i.e. any one of the two you are free to choose.
read the bold text above, which clearly shows that he knew that most of the traditions he gathered (actually if you dont know, a lot of them were gathered by his students and added to the book without proving thier autehthicity under his supervision) are not authentic.
Simply Laughable!! stop waisting your valuable time on sites like allaahuakbar.net, which has nothing to do but to spread lies against shaiism.
You have’nt answered the following:
(this post is saved and uploaded to another server for record and future references)
Ranjhan, what I fail to understand is why you would even contemplate a muta'a in your situation? You do realize that part of a muta'a is sexual intercourse, or at least some intimate interaction? If you know your nikkah is to a mismatch, and you're both in agreement on that, then why not just separate altogether? If you do a muta'a, you do realize that you're putting the girl in a tough position, because you know, with guys like you running amock out there, who will want to marry the girl you are with now? Even if you go around testifying that there really wasn't any intercourse involved. Comon now.
If you dont want to commit to the relationship, then why try to find an excuse to go to bed with her, or to even be remotely intimate with her?
Second thing I'd like to add on this whole muta'a issue is that its totally bogus because it goes against one of the main criterion for a marriage - that is no marriage should be based solely on lust. A muta'a is just that - its a marriage based on the desire for another person's body. After that desire is indulged in, the marriage can be finished off. That is certainly no Islamic marriage. Therefore, the "enjoyment" phrase that the Quran talks about in the ayahs mentioned are simply the enjoyment that naturally accompanies a permanent marriage. That is, permanent marriages are to be enjoyed. God isn't saying, for prude practical reasons do a permanent marriage, and then for your enjoyment, go do a temporary one. Just because the word muta'a shares common background for the word that "enjoyment" is employed, is no justification for the claim that temporary marriages are allowed, simply for the logical reason that both permanent marriages also have an enjoyment factor to them.
Also, when proponents of muta'a talk about "wages" (as in give your women wages) - I've read the same ayah in different texts, and I dont come accross the translation of "wages". I have always seen "dowry" or "due". Never wages. As of yet, I dont see any translational justification for the term "wages".
I can't believe so many people here are arguing that muta'a is justified Islamically. I tend to go with the argument that initially it was allowed, but then disallowed. You see, from what I've read on the topic, it seems the practice was rampant in medina for a while before the Prophet entered Medina. When he did, he took the approach of slowly encouraging people out of it. So first, he addressed the problem of men engaging in muta'a and then not paying the women they've slept with. So, first he asked them to pay these ladies what is owed to them. A promise is a promise, after all, no matter what its nature. Then once he got people to understand this principle, he pointed out the triviality of the practice and eventually forbid people from practicing it.
In order to forbid people from practicing it, he had to get people to buy into the idea that women deserve respect. Even prostitutes. Which is, by the way, a revolutionary and unexpected idea to come out of a place like Arabia even in that century.
See? Easy peasy. Now please don't try to promote practices that you would not want to see your own mothers, sisters, and daughters engaging in. Because, you know, all women deserve the same respect.
**Temporary marriage is NOT necessarily a sex relationship **
The couple who want to enter in temporary marriage contract may put a condition at the time of contract that the marriage shall not be consummated. Such condition can NOT be put in permanent marriage and it is the religious obligation of the permanent wife to be sexually available to her husband and should be responsive to his sexual requests; and at the same time, man should not avoid intercourse for more than four month and should sleep with his permanent wife at least once each four nights.
Such sexual necessities do not apply in temporary marriage, because it has been designed for wider purposes which will be explained later. In the case that the couple put a condition that they do not have sex, then they can only enjoy other things in a couple life. If, later, the woman agrees to have sex, the condition is resolved, and the marriage can be consummated. This is due to the fact that the obstacle to sexual relations was the woman’s unwillingness to permit anything more than what was agreed upon in the contract. But the marriage contract warrants intercourse, i.e., the marriage contract itself establishes the permissibility of intercourse. Thus if the obstacle is removed, the default contract will come into play, unless such obstacle could not be removed by the woman (e.g., permission of the father of a virgin girl). (see Matajir, v2, p300; Riyadh, v2, p116)
In other words, if the condition of non-intercourse is laid down, that is the woman’s right over the man. So if she chooses to waive the condition, union is lawful.
Mut’a with sex is strongly discouraged for a virgin girl
Although a virgin girl can temporarily marry if her guardian permits, such marriage is strongly discouraged (Makrooh Muakkad) for a virgin girl * if * having sex is to be involved. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (AS) in one tradition mentioned this and gave the reason that “it may bring shame for her family.” In practice, most Muslim parents do not allow such thing either. But there is no problem for a virgin girl to temporarily marry if they put the condition at the time of the contract that the marriage can not be consummated, by saying for instance: they can just visit each other under the supervision of the parents.
However, under some circumstances, the temporary marriage (with no restriction) may become necessary even for a virgin girl if her guardian feels that there is a great possibility of committing sin for her girl due to personal and or environmental situation, and if no qualified man proposed her permanent marriage.
zero1 - your comments only bring about more inconsistencies in the theory of muta'a as being an Islamicly justified practice.
Sex may not be necessary - this much I've already acknowledged in my post - because I do include the clause of "or to be even remotely intimate with her". Reread my post.
Furthermore, just because sex may not be "necessary" still does not bring the concept closer to the spirit of Islam. Sex can still be a part of muta'a and it was definitely a reason behind muta'as that were done and condoned by the prophet during time of wars. After the Medina incident I mentioned, some scholars say that it was ONLY condoned during time of war. And that too as a last resort, when the soldiers were absolutely desperate. Many hadith's speak of this allowance being once again banned once time of war was over.
Secondly, why can muta'a only be allowed for a nonvirgin woman? Dont tell me the rights of a nonvirgin woman vs. a virgin woman are any different within bounds of marriage? That's simply silly, and there is absolutely no Quranic proof behind this.
Again, I ask you not to encourage practices that you would not permit your own mother, sister, and daughter to be a part of.
^ welcome back pcg! u were missed.
and i have asked all those questions before, they keep slamming me with stupid justification which doesnt make sense.
Many hadiths that say that Mutah was banned have been declared inauthentic. It has yet to be proven that Mutah is indeed unIslamic, and people have failed miserably in this area. Otherwise, as far as we know Mutah is very halaal in Islam.
if it was so sick..Prophet of Allah would never have allowed it in the first place..i am sure Prophet of Allah knew more about Islam and this practice than any of us here..so please think before you speak..the only debate is whether it was Prophet Mohummad (pbuh&up) or hazrat umar who banned it..and plus no one is asking anyone to do mutah..shias just believe that it was hazrat umar who banned it and Prophet (pbuh&up) never banned it himself...there are number of hadiths that prove that point
