BBC to post undercover mutah documentary

[muslim720]

Muslim 720 says can I prove Imamah from the Qur'an.

Qur'an (2:124).

"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an IMAM for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."

Qur'an (32:24).

"And we made of them IMAMS to guide by our command for they were patient, and they were certain of our clear signs”.

Below are the two verses which absolutely and completely destroy Saqifa.

"And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs”
(28:68)

“And it behaves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter” (33:36)

Same recycled argument, lol.

As usual, we can concede miles and still the foundations of our religion will remain intact whereas Shias cannot concede a millimeter.  Also, when Shias present evidence for one of their beliefs, the same evidence almost always negates one or more of their other beliefs.

So, in regards to verse pronouncing Ibrahim's (asws) alleged "Imamah":

1.  We did not ask you to quote the word "imam" in the Qur'an.  But since you went for it, please account for the following verse, "And we made them Imams who call to the fire and on the day of Qiyamat they shall not be assisted. And we caused a curse to follow them in this world, and on the day of Qiyamat they shall be of those made to appear hideous".  (Surah Qassas 41-42)

2.  If Ibrahim (asws) was a prophet who was elevated to being an imam then he - like the Holy Prophet (saw) - is above all your Imams (ra).  Therefore, the Shi'i belief that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except the Holy Prophet (saw) is incorrect, in fact refuted by their own evidence.

The Kufans were put under siege by the governor of Kufa on orders of your calipha Yazeed Ibne Muawiya. My beliefs are with Hussain, his family, friends, supporters and followers. Yours lie with the Caliphate.

I proved to you that the foundations of your religion were laid down by Kufans and this is how - IN VAIN - you tried to counter it, lol.

[iceman]

Same recycled argument, lol.

As usual, we can concede miles and still the foundations of our religion will remain intact whereas Shias cannot concede a millimeter.  Also, when Shias present evidence for one of their beliefs, the same evidence almost always negates one or more of their other beliefs.

So, in regards to verse pronouncing Ibrahim's (asws) alleged "Imamah":

1.  We did not ask you to quote the word "imam" in the Qur'an.  But since you went for it, please account for the following verse, "And we made them Imams who call to the fire and on the day of Qiyamat they shall not be assisted. And we caused a curse to follow them in this world, and on the day of Qiyamat they shall be of those made to appear hideous".  (Surah Qassas 41-42)

2.  If Ibrahim (asws) was a prophet who was elevated to being an imam then he - like the Holy Prophet (saw) - is above all your Imams (ra).  Therefore, the Shi'i belief that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except the Holy Prophet (saw) is incorrect, in fact refuted by their own evidence.


I proved to you that the foundations of your religion were laid down by Kufans and this is how - IN VAIN - you tried to counter it, lol.

"Same recycled argument, lol."

What do you expect. Same old question over and over again.

"As usual, we can concede miles and still the foundations of our religion will remain intact"

The foundations of your religion have been wobbly and shaky from day one. Saqifa is the foundation. Something terrible was about to happen there. And three Muhajir sneaked off there without informing others. Otherwise the matter would have slipped out of their hand.

"Also, when Shias present evidence for one of their beliefs, the same evidence almost always negates one or more of their other beliefs"

FOR EXAMPLE? Everytime I ask you for an.example or explanation about something or ask you to provide evidence to something or to back up and claim you Start going weak at the knees.

"So, in regards to verse pronouncing Ibrahim's (asws) alleged "Imamah":

You kept pestering me to prove Imamah from the Qur'an. And I just mentioned something just to silence you. If you want to discuss anything irrelevant or different to this thread then start a thread and I'll be more than happy to deal with your propaganda.

"I proved to you that the foundations of your religion were laid down by Kufans and this is how - IN VAIN - you tried to counter it, lol"

You haven't backed or proven anything. You can't even explain anything. You're a complete failure and you know that. Kufans were put under siege by your Caliphate. And the foundations of my faith and belief are Qur'an and Sunnah. Your belief and faith is all over the place.

[iceman]

Here's another documentary by the BBC which you guys have missed.

https://youtu.be/TlvNMlIMWhw

Anything to say about this documentary. Mythbuster Muslim 720, gone into hiding.

[muslim720]

What do you expect. Same old question over and over again.

So you deem misquoting the Qur'an as a reliable way to answer a question you cannot answer?  In other words, you can lie upon the Qur'an to substantiate your own lies and mythical beliefs.

The foundations of your religion have been wobbly and shaky from day one. Saqifa is the foundation.

Says who?  Your scholars born out of mut'ah?  Or your Kufan ideological ancestors who furnished your beliefs?

Something terrible was about to happen there. And three Muhajir sneaked off there without informing others. Otherwise the matter would have slipped out of their hand.

At the end of the day, Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) became Caliphs in accordance to the principles laid down at Saqeefah and none of them did anything you say they would have done if they were elected first and second.  In fact, coming at fourth, Imam Ali (ra) was leader to a larger nation with more strength and resources, courtesy of the first three (ra) who spent their time spreading Islam rather than getting caught up in the treachery of so-called "supporters" or "partisans".

FOR EXAMPLE? Everytime I ask you for an.example or explanation about something or ask you to provide evidence to something or to back up and claim you Start going weak at the knees.

No, I think you are going blind.

"If Ibrahim (asws) was a prophet who was elevated to being an imam then he - like the Holy Prophet (saw) - is above all your Imams (ra).  Therefore, the Shi'i belief that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except the Holy Prophet (saw) is incorrect, in fact refuted by their own evidence."

Still need a magnifying glass?

You kept pestering me to prove Imamah from the Qur'an.

You showed the word "Imam" in the Qur'an with nothing being said about your ideological concept of "Imamah".  Furthermore, I showed you how the same word can lead many to hellfire.  Therefore, you cannot make a positive case for a word which is used for good and evil leaders.

You haven't backed or proven anything.

Were Abu Basir, Zurara, Hisham bin Hakam and Hisham bin Salem not Kufans?  SubhanAllah!

Anything to say about this documentary. Mythbuster Muslim 720, gone into hiding.

Going into hiding?  We don't follow the "Sunnah" of your 12th imaginary! 

Look at what the description of the documentary says: "The controversial practice, known as halala, is believed by a small minority of Muslims to be the only way a divorced woman can get back with her husband after a triple talaq - an instant divorce where a man says 'talaq' three times to his wife".

Hence, it is not a belief held by majority or all of Muslims.  Furthermore, unlike your hundreds of ahaadith praising mut'ah, here is what our books say regarding halala.

Abu Dawood (2076) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah has cursed the muhallil and the muhallal lahu.”

Ibn Majaah (1936) narrated from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Shall I not tell you of a borrowed billy-goat.”  They said, Yes, O Messenger of Allaah.  He said, “He is al-muhallil. May Allaah curse al-muhallil and al-muhallal lahu.”

So I would thank the folks at BBC to expose those who practice this shameful practice.  It is time for these people to realize that they are upon extreme misguidance.

Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be "Sunnah" by your sect?

[Mythbuster1]

Anything to say about this documentary. Mythbuster Muslim 720, gone into hiding.

Yes......we don’t practice it nor do we follow it .....it’s not sunnah you dimwit🙂

MUTA according to shiites is sunna!!!

All these posts and you cannot even defend a Shiite sunnah.......that speaks volumes about your sect.

Just like imamah you haven’t a SINGLE verse supporting your Imamate ideology.

Ibrahim as after being a prophet is PROMOTED to imam
Ali ra and ahlubaith ra are PROMOTED without being prophets

You confused soul😉

[iceman]

Yes......we don’t practice it nor do we follow it .....it’s not sunnah you dimwit🙂

MUTA according to shiites is sunna!!!

All these posts and you cannot even defend a Shiite sunnah.......that speaks volumes about your sect.

Just like imamah you haven’t a SINGLE verse supporting your Imamate ideology.

Ibrahim as after being a prophet is PROMOTED to imam
Ali ra and ahlubaith ra are PROMOTED without being prophets

You confused soul😉

Imamah has been proven straight and direct from the Qur'an. No need for counter arguments and excuses. The Prophet s.a.w banned Mu'tah, something that is mentioned and allowed in the Qur'an. Justify the ban by giving a clear reason and explanation. Oops you don't have one 😆😅😂

[iceman]

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“O Ansar! You deserve all the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish”

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) explained:

“(O Ansar) you are our brethren in Islam and our partners in religion…but the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraish…we (the Quraish) are in the center among the Muslims with respect to our position…”

(The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9, p.193)

Now tell me from the above where do you see consultation?

In the first reference you hear Abu Bakr saying;

"but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish”

Is this consultation? Or tribal?

In the second reference you will hear Abu Bakr saying;

"but the Arabs will not submit themselves except to this clan of Quraish"

Is this consultation? Or is it tribal?

Where exactly are those principles Muslim 720 talks about that were laid down in Saqifa? Don't come back with ifs and buts or with counter arguments.

How did Abu Bakr know about this “superiority” of the Quraysh? Qur’an and its Bringer, Muhammad, never said that the tribe of Quraysh was superior to anyone or that it had any superiority at all.

In fact, it were the Quraysh who were the most die-hard of all the idolaters of Arabia. They clutched their idols, and they fought against Muhammad and Islam, with cannibalistic fury, for more than twenty years. The Ansar, on the other hand, accepted Islam spontaneously and voluntarily. They entered Islam en bloc and without demur.

[muslim720]

Now tell me from the above where do you see consultation?

If you are that dumb, and we know you are, then Allah (swt) help and guide you.

You are posting reports about a conversation between Abu Bakr (ra) at Saqeefah.  Is that not consultation?  How do you consult?  By farting, I guess!  Maybe that is why you fog up each discussion thread but for normal people, consultation happens in the form of a conversation.

Where exactly are those principles Muslim 720 talks about that were laid down in Saqifa?

Hold on, mut'ah boy!  You asked my opinion on the documentary regarding halala.  I gave you my opinion and asked you a question.  Please respond to it before you pose more questions.

I will copy-paste it here: "Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"

[iceman]

If you are that dumb, and we know you are, then Allah (swt) help and guide you.

You are posting reports about a conversation between Abu Bakr (ra) at Saqeefah.  Is that not consultation?  How do you consult?  By farting, I guess!  Maybe that is why you fog up each discussion thread but for normal people, consultation happens in the form of a conversation.


Hold on, mut'ah boy!  You asked my opinion on the documentary regarding halala.  I gave you my opinion and asked you a question.  Please respond to it before you pose more questions.

I will copy-paste it here: "Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"

"If you are that dumb, and we know you are, then Allah (swt) help and guide you"

Stop being and playing arrogant. You know it's a lost argument for you.

"Maybe that is why you fog up each discussion thread"

You're the one who has repeatedly brought in irrelevant stuff to the thread.

"You are posting reports about a conversation between Abu Bakr (ra) at Saqeefah.  Is that not consultation?  How do you consult?"


Where is consultation with in Saqifa? Where are the principles laid down which you mentioned.  That isn't consultation but tribalism. Consultation is not between a handful of people without the vast majority present or without them knowing about it. Stop being and playing arrogant.

"By farting, I guess!"

That's Saqifa for you.

"Hold on, mut'ah boy!"

Go on halala and misyaar boy.

"You asked my opinion on the documentary regarding halala.  I gave you my opinion and asked you a question.  Please respond to it before you pose more questions"

Here's my response. Why are you boys so quick to pick up, post and try to put down an entire community on a documentary from the BBC when there are other documentaries available. Do you choose to play blind or dumb when it comes the other way. Or are you just prejudice when it comes to the Shias.

[iceman]

I live in the UK and we didn't "miss" this documentary. It was discussed amongst the community here when it came out and marrying with the intention to divorce just so you can get back with your previous spouse is apparently a major sin. This is in contrast to mutah which is openly accepted in the shia community and seen as a noble act.

And would you like to mention the sect and community that believe in and practice halala. Those scholars who preech and practice halala which sect are they from. Care to point this out as well since you're at it. 😊

[muslim720]

Where is consultation with in Saqifa?

I am curious to know what you understand by consultation.

Where are the principles laid down which you mentioned.

I did not lay down any principles.  I only reminded you that whatever you consider to Saqeefah to be, Imam Ali (ra) became the Commander of Faithful based on those very principles (whatever hateful ideas you have in your mind in regards to Saqeefah).  Imam Hassan (ra) as well!

Consultation is not between a handful of people without the vast majority present or without them knowing about it.

Let us assume that we (Sunnis) are wrong in saying that it was "consultation".  It still does not shake the core of our beliefs.  You, on the other hand, cannot account for any of the following:

1.  Imam Ali (ra) - and by extension Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) being represented by their father - gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra).

2.  Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) became Caliphs in accordance to what was put in place at Saqeefah, not by Divine Election.

3.  Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor Imam Hassan (ra) did anything as per your beliefs.  On the contrary, they maintained status quo!  They never reclaimed Fadak, they did not speak ill of any of the first three (ra) and they certainly did nothing to undo the "evils" that the first three (ra) introduced in the ummah.

That's Saqifa for you.

As per Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali (ra) accepted leadership on the basis of farts rather than Imamah.  Certainly proves Imamah is weaker than fart so thank you for your admission.  You have finally defined Imamah as we have been doing so....inferior to fart, lol.

Here's my response. Why are you boys so quick to pick up, post and try to put down an entire community on a documentary from the BBC when there are other documentaries available.

That is not an answer; you have only posed another question to side-step mine so here it is again: "Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"

And would you like to mention the sect and community that believe in and practice halala. Those scholars who preech and practice halala which sect are they from. Care to point this out as well since you're at it.

I have done better!  I have condemned them all, even if they were my blood relatives, and our condemnation is in line with our books.  I pity you!  You uphold mut'ah but can't stomach the fact that there is a documentary about it.  Unless you believe that an act of "sunnah" can be shameful!

[iceman]

I am curious to know what you understand by consultation.


I did not lay down any principles.  I only reminded you that whatever you consider to Saqeefah to be, Imam Ali (ra) became the Commander of Faithful based on those very principles (whatever hateful ideas you have in your mind in regards to Saqeefah).  Imam Hassan (ra) as well!


Let us assume that we (Sunnis) are wrong in saying that it was "consultation".  It still does not shake the core of our beliefs.  You, on the other hand, cannot account for any of the following:

1.  Imam Ali (ra) - and by extension Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) being represented by their father - gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra).

2.  Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) became Caliphs in accordance to what was put in place at Saqeefah, not by Divine Election.

3.  Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor Imam Hassan (ra) did anything as per your beliefs.  On the contrary, they maintained status quo!  They never reclaimed Fadak, they did not speak ill of any of the first three (ra) and they certainly did nothing to undo the "evils" that the first three (ra) introduced in the ummah.


As per Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali (ra) accepted leadership on the basis of farts rather than Imamah.  Certainly proves Imamah is weaker than fart so thank you for your admission.  You have finally defined Imamah as we have been doing so....inferior to fart, lol.


That is not an answer; you have only posed another question to side-step mine so here it is again: "Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"


I have done better!  I have condemned them all, even if they were my blood relatives, and our condemnation is in line with our books.  I pity you!  You uphold mut'ah but can't stomach the fact that there is a documentary about it.  Unless you believe that an act of "sunnah" can be shameful!

"I have done better!  I have condemned them all, even if they were my blood relatives, and our condemnation is in line with our books"

You condemning it doesn't make any difference. Halala is a part of the Sunni belief and faith. It's important by your scholars who not just preech but practice it and go further by helping woman out in your community.


"I pity you!  You uphold mut'ah but can't stomach the fact that there is a documentary about it.  Unless you believe that an act of "sunnah" can be shameful!"

I uphold mut'ah because it's absolutely crystal clear in the Qur'an. And we don't believe the Prophet s.a.w actually banned it. Neither can you justify the ban with a shred of evidence. I don't use the halaal documentary by the BBC to tarnish the reputation of your faith and community. Like you and your kind are always ready and willing to do with us.

[iceman]

I am curious to know what you understand by consultation.


I did not lay down any principles.  I only reminded you that whatever you consider to Saqeefah to be, Imam Ali (ra) became the Commander of Faithful based on those very principles (whatever hateful ideas you have in your mind in regards to Saqeefah).  Imam Hassan (ra) as well!


Let us assume that we (Sunnis) are wrong in saying that it was "consultation".  It still does not shake the core of our beliefs.  You, on the other hand, cannot account for any of the following:

1.  Imam Ali (ra) - and by extension Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) being represented by their father - gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra).

2.  Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) became Caliphs in accordance to what was put in place at Saqeefah, not by Divine Election.

3.  Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor Imam Hassan (ra) did anything as per your beliefs.  On the contrary, they maintained status quo!  They never reclaimed Fadak, they did not speak ill of any of the first three (ra) and they certainly did nothing to undo the "evils" that the first three (ra) introduced in the ummah.


As per Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali (ra) accepted leadership on the basis of farts rather than Imamah.  Certainly proves Imamah is weaker than fart so thank you for your admission.  You have finally defined Imamah as we have been doing so....inferior to fart, lol.


That is not an answer; you have only posed another question to side-step mine so here it is again: "Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"


I have done better!  I have condemned them all, even if they were my blood relatives, and our condemnation is in line with our books.  I pity you!  You uphold mut'ah but can't stomach the fact that there is a documentary about it.  Unless you believe that an act of "sunnah" can be shameful!

"I am curious to know what you understand by consultation"

What is consultation. What's the method and procedure. What are the principles, rules and regulations for consulting among yourselves to choose a leader a successor to Muhammad s.a.w. This is no joke like Saqifa. What were the principles that were laid down in Saqifa to select a leader for the Ummah. The gathering in Saqifa, was that a public assembly a public event where people gathered assembled to choose a leader. You know very well that you're caught out. What happened in Saqifa. What was said. Who gave the three Muhajirs to speak on this matter on behalf of others and without their consent and knowledge. Without informing them. You know Saqifa was the reason and foundation, the beginning of disaster for the Muslims. But they couldn't see it.

"Imam Ali (ra) became the Commander of Faithful based on those very principles"

WHAT WAS THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES.

"Let us assume that we (Sunnis) are wrong in saying that it was "consultation".  It still does not shake the core of our beliefs.  You, on the other hand, cannot account for any of the following"

You don't need to assume anything. It smashes the foundations of your belief and what you stand for. All this confrontational stance that you put up is to save and justify Saqifa. If Saqifa goes then the Shaykhain go followed by everything else.

"1.  Imam Ali (ra) - and by extension Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) being represented by their father - gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra)"

We don't believe nor accept that. Those who gained authority and got power did a lot of things and got a lot of things done in their favour. History was rewritten, hadiths were forged/tampered with. Later on those who got into authority and who had grudge grievances with the Ahle Baith and their offsprings boosted others against the Ahle Baith. Members of the Ahle Baith and their followers and supporters were persecuted and some went through character assassination. History is all there.

"Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) became Caliphs in accordance to what was put in place at Saqeefah, not by Divine Election"

What was put in place at Saqifa. It wasn't divine election nor was it consultation. It was tribal clash.

"Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor Imam Hassan (ra) did anything as per your beliefs.  On the contrary, they maintained status quo!"

They did everything they possibly could not to divide the Ummah and not let any harm come to Islam other the Muslims.

"They never reclaimed Fadak"

Authority and power is not for personal gain or vengeance. When members of the Ahle Baith gained authority they never took advantage of it to settle personal scores.

"they did not speak ill of any of the first three"

They never spoke I'll about anybody let alone the three. Speaking I'll wasn't part of their nature or character.

"and they certainly did nothing to undo the "evils" that the first three (ra) introduced in the ummah"

Ali passed on becoming the third Caliph. Because he refused to accept, follow and act on Seerah e Shaykhain. Why didn't Ali become the third Caliph of the Muslims.

"As per Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali (ra) accepted leadership on the basis of farts rather than Imamah.  Certainly proves Imamah is weaker than fart so thank you for your admission.  You have finally defined Imamah as we have been doing so....inferior to fart, lol"

Jaahil and jahalath. That answers this.

"Now the question is this: can you condemn mut'ah?  And if you cannot, why are you upset that BBC produced a documentary on an act considered to be 'Sunnah' by your sect?"

I will not condemn something that is permissible and allowed in the Qur'an and what was most certainly practiced during the Prophet's s.a.w time. I will not condemn something that can't be justified that the Prophet s.a.w banned it. I most certainly condemn those who have misused and abuse it. Because there are a few bad beans in every tin or packet. But you can't hold the tin or packet responsible for those few bad beans. And I most certainly condemn those who hijack such matters to paint a bad picture of my faith and community. Definitely down with these propagandists.

[iceman]

Nikah halala Urdu: نکاح حلالہ‎ (Also known as tahleel marriage) is a practice in which a woman, after being divorced by triple talaq, marries another man, consummates the marriage, and gets divorced again in order to be able to remarry her former husband..Nikah means marriage and halala means to make something halal, or permissible..This form of marriage is haram (forbidden) according to the hadith of Islamic prophet Muhammad..Nikah Halala is practiced by some Sunni Muslims, mainly in countries that recognise the triple talaq.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D_3p14hzTlmw&ved=2ahUKEwj3_9Xo27zmAhU3UBUIHRQiBScQt9IBMA96BAgMECg&usg=AOvVaw07UwczvYFMyu3admbNEK3q

Now what do we do here, do we do exactly the same as these anti shia propagandists  and use the above to try and tarnish the name of sunnis and start attacking the Sunni community over this. No. There is a clear difference between us and those who use the Sunni platform to launch strikes at us and those noble Sunnis who differ with them.

[muslim720]

You condemning it doesn't make any difference. Halala is a part of the Sunni belief and faith. It's important by your scholars who not just preech but practice it and go further by helping woman out in your community.

First of all, it is "preach" not "preech".  Secondly, I showed you more than one authentic report from the Holy Prophet (saw) in which halala is condemned along with its participants.  I know there is no Sunni scholar who preaches halala - just like there are no fathers for your born-out-of-mut'ah scholars - but anyone who supports it has gone against the Holy Prophet (saw) and therefore cannot be a representative of our school.

I uphold mut'ah because it's absolutely crystal clear in the Qur'an. And we don't believe the Prophet s.a.w actually banned it. Neither can you justify the ban with a shred of evidence. I don't use the halaal documentary by the BBC to tarnish the reputation of your faith and community. Like you and your kind are always ready and willing to do with us.

The halala documentary did not tarnish our image.  It is an act of haraam, according to the Holy Prophet (saw), and if an Islamophobe presents me that documentary, I can refute his winded argument with three words: halala is haraam!  You, on the other hand, cannot do the same with mut'ah.  Since you consider it to be halaal, you'll have to dance around an Islamophobe's points.

It is interesting that you used the word "tarnish".  You are implicitly implying that the documentary on mut'ah is tarnishing your image so I find it ridiculous that something "crystal clear in the Qur'an" and a Prophetic tradition is "tarnishing" to your otherwise dirty image.

You know Saqifa was the reason and foundation, the beginning of disaster for the Muslims.

Actually, post-Saqeefa, Islam spread like wildfire.  I don't know what disaster are you talking about except that there aren't 313 men among millions of Shias to help the scared one come out of hiding.

WHAT WAS THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES

According to Nahjul Balagha, your first "infallible" Imam (ra) accepted the Caliphate based on those very principles.  Are you saying you do not even know how your first "infallible" Imam (ra) became the leader?  Shame! 

We don't believe nor accept that. Those who gained authority and got power did a lot of things and got a lot of things done in their favour. History was rewritten, hadiths were forged/tampered with. Later on those who got into authority and who had grudge grievances with the Ahle Baith and their offsprings boosted others against the Ahle Baith. Members of the Ahle Baith and their followers and supporters were persecuted and some went through character assassination. History is all there.

So you reject that Imam Ali (ra) gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra) and later consented to the rule of Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra)?

What was put in place at Saqifa. It wasn't divine election nor was it consultation. It was tribal clash.

According to Imam Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha, it was as per Allah's (swt) pleasure.  Burn!

They did everything they possibly could not to divide the Ummah and not let any harm come to Islam other the Muslims.

Yet, according to you, the ummah failed, Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and Saqeefa has been the root of all problems.  Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) failed, lol!

Authority and power is not for personal gain or vengeance. When members of the Ahle Baith gained authority they never took advantage of it to settle personal scores.

Fadak was not personal vengeance but the right of Fatima (ra) and her children (ra).  Honestly, I am laughing out loud at you clutching at straws.

They never spoke I'll about anybody let alone the three. Speaking I'll wasn't part of their nature or character.

Oh really?  And they didn't teach to curse the first two and elevated it to the rank of being an act of worship? 

Even if I accept your claim (that they did not speak ill of anyone), why don't you follow your Imams (ra) then?  Why do you speak ill of others when your Imams (ra) did not?

Shias claim that Muawiya started the tradition of cursing and today they are upon that tradition themselves.  Clearly shows who you are following, lol.

Jaahil and jahalath. That answers this.

No it does not!  You clearly placed fart above Imamah, lol.  You fell in your own trap, haha!

I will not condemn something that is permissible and allowed in the Qur'an and what was most certainly practiced during the Prophet's s.a.w time

Fine, don't condemn mut'ah.  It is permissible and acceptable (according to your madhhab) then why are you crying over the fact that BBC made a documentary on it?  Any publicity is good publicity, is it not?

[iceman]

"First of all, it is "preach" not "preech".  Secondly, I showed you more than one authentic report from the Holy Prophet (saw) in which halala is condemned along with its participants.  I know there is no Sunni scholar who preaches halala - just like there are no fathers for your born-out-of-mut'ah scholars - but anyone who supports it has gone against the Holy Prophet (saw) and therefore cannot be a representative of our school"

Sunni scholars have been preaching halaal. The BBC documentary clearly shows that. And there isn't just one documentary on it. And there are plenty of Sunni scholars around the world who consider it a part of their faith and belief. Some even help woman with halaal by volunteering themselves.

As far as mut'ah is concerned it's mentioned in the Qur'an and clearly permissible. It was practiced during the Prophet's s.a.w time. And we don't believe the Prophet s.a.w banned it because there is no justification out there regarding it. That's our position.

Your theory is the Prophet s.a.w banned it. The Prophet s.a.w didn't ban it but you believe and go by, he did. But can't justify it. Now it's down to the people to decide who's argument is stronger and has more weight. I'm not interested in the irrelevant stuff and the sarcastic comments. You can carry on with that.

As far as halaal is concerned it means to make something halal. Once a woman goes through triple talaq she can't marry the same husband. She is haraam on him. She has to become halaal for him. And the procedure for that is to marry another man, not just marry him but actually have intercourse with him. Obviously with the intention of divorce. Then she becomes halaal for her ex husband. I've known this throughout my life that this is part of the Sunni belief. It's preached in sunni mosques by sunni scholars and is practiced widely.

I don't need to, can but won't, use anything to undermine any faith or community. I don't go around picking and choosing bits and pieces then taking them out of perspective to undermine any religion, sect, community or people. Alhamdulillah I know where I take humanity followed by Islam from. And that is the Ahle Baith e Muhammad s.a.w. you guys are desperate. And you really need to sort yourself out.

"It is interesting that you used the word "tarnish".  You are implicitly implying that the documentary on mut'ah is tarnishing your image so I find it ridiculous that something "crystal clear in the Qur'an" and a Prophetic tradition is "tarnishing" to your otherwise dirty image"

Mut'ah isn't tarnishing our image just as it didn't tarnish the image of Allah who allowed it and Muhammad s.a.w in who's time and age it was practiced. Neither did it tarnish the reputation of the companions of the Prophet s.a.w or others who practiced it.

Certain people from our community who go out and misuse and abuse any law or principle, any rule or regulation, any benefit or comfort we can't be held responsible for that. And we certainly won't allow people like you and your clan to high jack that and use it against us.

The BBC only did its job to expose criminals just as in the halala documentary and many other documentaries on terror and a lot others. We don't associate terror with Sunni Islam as we preach to certain non Muslims and certain parts and elements of the western media not to associate terror with Islam because of certain Muslims fanatics, groups and organisations.

And we preach to certain Sunnis not to associate the misuse and abuse of any law or principle, any rule or regulation, any benefit or comfort with Shia Islam or its community. And we expose the propaganda of certain so called Sunnis who are deeply involved in such propaganda.

"Actually, post-Saqeefa, Islam spread like wildfire.  I don't know what disaster are you talking about except that there aren't 313 men among millions of Shias to help the scared one come out of hiding"

Not interested in sarcasm and irrelevant stuff. I'm fully aware of your agenda and tactics.

"According to Nahjul Balagha, your first "infallible" Imam (ra) accepted the Caliphate based on those very principles.  Are you saying you do not even know how your first "infallible" Imam (ra) became the leader?  Shame!"

And what were THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES 😊

"So you reject that Imam Ali (ra) gave bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra) and later consented to the rule of Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra)?"

Reject? I don't accept that. It's something I don't believe in. A lot of stuff was created/invented by certain rulers and enemies/rivals of the Ahle Baith then and way after. Things need to be looked at and examined. Just like the Prophet s.a.w all of a sudden and out of the blue banned Mu'tah.

"According to Imam Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha, it was as per Allah's (swt) pleasure.  Burn!"

Don't need to burn. You need to explain yourself and part of your beliefs.

"Fine, don't condemn mut'ah. It is permissible and acceptable (according to your madhhab)"

Nope. Not according to my madhhab but according to Allah and Muhammad s.a.w. According to your madhhab Muhammad s.a.w banned it. JUSTIFY YOUR MADHHAB.

"then why are you crying over the fact that BBC made a documentary on it"

I'm not crying over it. BBC didn't make a documentary on mut'ah. Because if they did then they would have used the Qur'an and Sunnah. They only exposed the misuse and abuse of it by certain people who unfortunately belonged to and are part of our community. I'm only pointing out your misuse and abuse of that documentary by taking it to feed and fund your propaganda activity.

"No it does not!  You clearly placed fart above Imamah, lol.  You fell in your own trap, haha!"

Like I said, not interested in sarcasm. Don't need to and won't go down to your level.

"Shias claim that Muawiya started the tradition of cursing and today they are upon that tradition themselves.  Clearly shows who you are following, lol."

"Yet, according to you, the ummah failed, Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and Saqeefa has been the root of all problems.  Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) failed, lol!

Not interested at all in the irrelevant stuff you bring. Again fully aware of your techniques and tactics.

"Even if I accept your claim (that they did not speak ill of anyone), why don't you follow your Imams (ra) then?  Why do you speak ill of others when your Imams (ra) did not?"

I do follow them. Show me were and when I spoke I'll about anyone. That's your business. That's what you do. Want proof.

"Oh really?  And they didn't teach to curse the first two and elevated it to the rank of being an act of worship?"

Don't know what you're talking about. Are you OK. A bit of advice, don't bring irrelevant stuff on to the thread.

"Fadak was not personal vengeance but the right of Fatima (ra) and her children (ra).  Honestly, I am laughing out loud at you clutching at straws"

Authority and power isn't there for personal gain nor is it for to settle personal scores. Learn about the policies of the Ahle Baith and it's members

[muslim720]

Sunni scholars have been preaching halaal.

Name me one and cite his fatwa.

The BBC documentary clearly shows that. And there isn't just one documentary on it.

For every BBC documentary, we have authentic reports that deem halala impermissible so I am not sure why you are beating a dead horse.  I mean I understand you are no different than the piece of human excrement which gets stuck to the bowl and refuses to be flushed down but I hope even someone like you can understand that you are comparing a haraam act (halala) with something you consider to be clearly stated in the Qur'an and demonstrated in the Sunnah (mut'ah).

And there are plenty of Sunni scholars around the world who consider it a part of their faith and belief. Some even help woman with halaal by volunteering themselves.

Surely you can name them.

As far as mut'ah is concerned it's mentioned in the Qur'an and clearly permissible. It was practiced during the Prophet's s.a.w time. And we don't believe the Prophet s.a.w banned it because there is no justification out there regarding it. That's our position.

I know bastards would protect their procreative ways but the question is this: why are you offended by the BBC documentary if mut'ah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and the Holy Prophet (saw) did not ban it?

Your theory is the Prophet s.a.w banned it.

No, it is Imam Ali (ra) who reported from the Holy Prophet (saw) that mut'ah was banned.  Far from a theory!  By the way, where is mut'ah in the Qur'an?

I've known this throughout my life that this is part of the Sunni belief.

Well guess what?  Halala, for the tenth time, is haraam as per authentic Prophetic traditions.  The fact that you grew up believing that it is mainstream Sunni practice proves that you were raised to hate the Sunnis.  And you have the nerve to accuse us of having brought up to hate Shias.

By the way, knowing something throughout your insignificant and meaningless life does not prove it to be true.

I don't need to, can but won't, use anything to undermine any faith or community. I don't go around picking and choosing bits and pieces then taking them out of perspective to undermine any religion, sect, community or people.

Also Iceman, the lying piece of human scum, after having been shown that halala is haraam: "I've known this throughout my life that this (halala) is part of the Sunni belief".

Mut'ah isn't tarnishing our image

Then why are you butthurt?  If it isn't tarnishing, you should thank the BBC for the publicity.

Not interested in sarcasm and irrelevant stuff. I'm fully aware of your agenda and tactics.

It is not sarcasm.  It is a historical fact that Islam did not spread during the times of your first and second "infallible" Imams (ra).

And what were THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES

"Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. 

1.  (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider),

2.  and he who was absent has no right to reject;

3.  and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. 

4.  If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure."

Reject? I don't accept that. It's something I don't believe in.

Clearly, you are above your own scholars because they said:

1.) Zurarah narrated from Imam Baqir that he said : Ali had hidden his ‘amr’ and rendered allegiance with disliking when he didn’t find supporters. [Furu Kafi, 3/139]

2.) When the letter reached Usama, he returned with his supporters to Medinah, and when he saw that the people have united on AbuBakr, he went to Ali and asked : What is it? He replied :This is what you are observing. Usama asked : Have you also rendered allegiance to him? Ali said : Yes O Usamah! [Ihtijaj p. 50]

Shustri says:

3.) Ali and the complete bani hashim rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr with dislike, and laid their hands on his hand. [Majalis al Momineen, tadhkira Khalid ibn saeed]

4.) Ali said : I rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr just like you people rendered allegiance to him, and disliked to break the power of Muslims and disunite their jamaat, then when AbuBakr appointed Umar as Caliph after him, and you knew that I had more right after the Messenger of Allah (s), I still rendered allegiance to Umar as you rendered allegiance to him, till when he was killed and made me the member of six member council, I joined them and disliked to disunite the jamaat of the Muslims and break their power. Then you rendered allegiance to Uthman, I also rendered allegiance to him. [Amali by Tusi, 2/121]

5.) Sayyid Murtadha says in ‘al Shafi’ : What is apparent and in which there is no problem is that Ali rendered allegiance (to Abu Bakr) to protect from Sharr and escape from fitnah. [al-Shafi, p. 209]

I'm not crying over it. BBC didn't make a documentary on mut'ah. Because if they did then they would have used the Qur'an and Sunnah. They only exposed the misuse and abuse of it by certain people who unfortunately belonged to and are part of our community.

Show us mut'ah in the Qur'an and please tell us which parts in the documentary highlight the misuse and abuse.

Not interested at all in the irrelevant stuff you bring. Again fully aware of your techniques and tactics.

Very relevant!  You want to talk about Saqeefa but run away from the failure of your first and second "infallibles" (ra).  And you uphold the alleged Sunnah of Muawiya - cursing of others - but claim to be following the Imams (ra). 

Authority and power isn't there for personal gain nor is it for to settle personal scores. Learn about the policies of the Ahle Baith and it's members

Policies of Ahle Baith (ra)?  Are you saying that they had policies and procedures?  What next?  A constitution?  Bill of Rights?  Charter of Rights? 

There is no personal gain in restoring Fadak except it would have been serving justice.  Clearly, the Imams (ra) proved you all to be liars by not doing a single thing you want us to believe they would have done had they had power.

[iceman]

Name me one and cite his fatwa.


For every BBC documentary, we have authentic reports that deem halala impermissible so I am not sure why you are beating a dead horse.  I mean I understand you are no different than the piece of human excrement which gets stuck to the bowl and refuses to be flushed down but I hope even someone like you can understand that you are comparing a haraam act (halala) with something you consider to be clearly stated in the Qur'an and demonstrated in the Sunnah (mut'ah).


Surely you can name them.


I know bastards would protect their procreative ways but the question is this: why are you offended by the BBC documentary if mut'ah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and the Holy Prophet (saw) did not ban it?


No, it is Imam Ali (ra) who reported from the Holy Prophet (saw) that mut'ah was banned.  Far from a theory!  By the way, where is mut'ah in the Qur'an?


Well guess what?  Halala, for the tenth time, is haraam as per authentic Prophetic traditions.  The fact that you grew up believing that it is mainstream Sunni practice proves that you were raised to hate the Sunnis.  And you have the nerve to accuse us of having brought up to hate Shias.

By the way, knowing something throughout your insignificant and meaningless life does not prove it to be true.


Also Iceman, the lying piece of human scum, after having been shown that halala is haraam: "I've known this throughout my life that this (halala) is part of the Sunni belief".


Then why are you butthurt?  If it isn't tarnishing, you should thank the BBC for the publicity.


It is not sarcasm.  It is a historical fact that Islam did not spread during the times of your first and second "infallible" Imams (ra).


"Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. 

1.  (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider),

2.  and he who was absent has no right to reject;

3.  and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. 

4.  If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure."


Clearly, you are above your own scholars because they said:

1.) Zurarah narrated from Imam Baqir that he said : Ali had hidden his ‘amr’ and rendered allegiance with disliking when he didn’t find supporters. [Furu Kafi, 3/139]

2.) When the letter reached Usama, he returned with his supporters to Medinah, and when he saw that the people have united on AbuBakr, he went to Ali and asked : What is it? He replied :This is what you are observing. Usama asked : Have you also rendered allegiance to him? Ali said : Yes O Usamah! [Ihtijaj p. 50]

Shustri says:

3.) Ali and the complete bani hashim rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr with dislike, and laid their hands on his hand. [Majalis al Momineen, tadhkira Khalid ibn saeed]

4.) Ali said : I rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr just like you people rendered allegiance to him, and disliked to break the power of Muslims and disunite their jamaat, then when AbuBakr appointed Umar as Caliph after him, and you knew that I had more right after the Messenger of Allah (s), I still rendered allegiance to Umar as you rendered allegiance to him, till when he was killed and made me the member of six member council, I joined them and disliked to disunite the jamaat of the Muslims and break their power. Then you rendered allegiance to Uthman, I also rendered allegiance to him. [Amali by Tusi, 2/121]

5.) Sayyid Murtadha says in ‘al Shafi’ : What is apparent and in which there is no problem is that Ali rendered allegiance (to Abu Bakr) to protect from Sharr and escape from fitnah. [al-Shafi, p. 209]


Show us mut'ah in the Qur'an and please tell us which parts in the documentary highlight the misuse and abuse.


Very relevant!  You want to talk about Saqeefa but run away from the failure of your first and second "infallibles" (ra).  And you uphold the alleged Sunnah of Muawiya - cursing of others - but claim to be following the Imams (ra). 


Policies of Ahle Baith (ra)?  Are you saying that they had policies and procedures?  What next?  A constitution?  Bill of Rights?  Charter of Rights? 

There is no personal gain in restoring Fadak except it would have been serving justice.  Clearly, the Imams (ra) proved you all to be liars by not doing a single thing you want us to believe they would have done had they had power.

"There is no personal gain in restoring Fadak except it would have been serving justice.  Clearly, the Imams (ra) proved you all to be liars by not doing a single thing you want us to believe they would have done had they had power"

Fadak has been discussed in great detail. Pull out the thread or start another one, if you're that desperate. Authority and power isn't for personal gain or settling personal scores. That's exactly what some rulers did after Muhammad s.a.w. And some people governed how they assumed better.

"Policies of Ahle Baith (ra)?  Are you saying that they had policies and procedures?  What next?  A constitution?  Bill of Rights?  Charter of Rights?"

I've already explained the ways and policies of the Ahle Baith. You toying with matter isn't going to get you anywhere.

"Very relevant!  You want to talk about Saqeefa but run away from the failure of your first and second "infallibles" (ra).  And you uphold the alleged Sunnah of Muawiya - cursing of others - but claim to be following the Imams (ra)"

Irrelevant to this thread. Start a thread then watch me. Will see who runs. You're running at the moment bringing in irrelevant stuff.

Points 1 to 5 you put forward. What happened to you, the Sahaba and other Muslims when Ali was made calipha? Those who opposed Ali or went further raising arms against him, where do you put them? Double standards. I thought so.

"Clearly, you are above your own scholars because they said"

1, Just because they've mentioned something in their book doesn’t mean it's their opinion.

2, Giving allegiance voluntarily is different then not having a choice. Some individuals think about others and some just think about themselves.

3, History has been tampered with along with narrations and hadiths. They're certain things we believe and certain things we don't.

4, There is a difference in opinion when it comes to scholars. Some might believe that Ali gave allegiance. And some probably believe he didn't.

[iceman]

The Verse of Mut’ah (4:24)
The most important verse of the Holy Qur’an which establishes the legitimacy of Mut’ah is verse 24 of Surat an-Nisa, known to all hadeeth commentators (Sunni and Shi’a) as “the verse of Mut’ah.” This verse provides a clear and unshakeable permission for the practice of temporary marriage. In the same way that Islam has established principles to protect human beings, via rules and regulations, it has at the same time provided for legitimate means by which man can enjoy himself, and Mut’ah is one of these ways. The Shari’ah prohibits fornication, but at the same time allows the practise of Mut’ah. If anyone is unaware of this blessing from Allah (swt), then let us set out the evidences from the Holy Qur’an:

[Forbidden to you] are married woman, except what your right hand possesses. This Allah has written for you, and all other women besides these are permitted to you, so that you may seek them out with your wealth, seeking chastity and not fornication. So when you have contracted temporary marriage [istimt'atum] with them, then give them their words. There is no sin on you for whatever you agree to after this. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Wise.
Al-Qur’an, Surah An-Nisa, Ayah 24

Allah (swt) has used the word istimta’tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut’ah. While the word has many other numerous meanings (as will be discussed below), we see that in the same way that the terms Zakat, Saum, and hajj carry a specific Islamic definition, so does the word istimta’. The specific, Islamic meaning which the word refers to is the performance of a temporary marriage, and nobody has denied this.

Four main evidences that prove that verse 4:24 refers to Mutah
We initially submitted Sunni materials that prove that amongst the numerous Qur’anic verses, there exists a specific one regarding Mutah, namely the 24th verse of Surah Nisa. In that verse Allah (swt) has used the Arabic word istimta’tum, which is the verbal form of the word Mut’ah. Many Nawasib try their best to prove that istimta’tum does not in any way refer to Nikah al-Mutah, but all such Nasibi attempts fall flat since there are three key pieces of evidence that negate the Nasibi notion.

First evidence- The fact that authentic Sunni books are replete with traditions informing us of episodes wherein the Sahabah performed temporary marriage (Mutah) and many of these traditions contain the same Arabic word istimta. Let us cite two such examples, first from Sahih Muslim, the second most authentic Sunni Hadith book.


حدثني الربيع بن سبرة الجهني، أن أباه، حدثه أنه، كان مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ‏”‏ يا أيها الناس إني قد كنت أذنت لكم في الاستمتاع من النساء
“Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon hm) he said: 0 people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women…”
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3255

We read the following episode in Muwatta by Imam Malik:

۔۔۔ عمر بن الخطاب فقالت ان ربيعة بن امية استمتع بامراة فحملت منه ۔۔۔
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ”Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she…”
Muwatta Imam Malik, Book 28, Number 28.18.42

Second evidence – The fact that all Sunni commentators have recorded arguments regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of Mutah and have recorded the practices and views of the Sahaba, Tabaeen and Ulema regarding Mutah under the commentary of no other verse but 4:24. For those Nawasib who advance the notion that this verse does not deal with Mutah, we would like to ask them:

“Did the Sunni commentators of the Quran including the Nasibi’s favourite Ibn Kathir, along with Imam Tabari, Qurtubi etc have no understanding as to what they were doing when they were advancing their arguments about Mutah under the commentary of 4:24?”

Third evidence - The fact that many of the prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen that present day Nawasib adhere to would read the cited verse with some extra words, making it crystal clear that the verse referred to temporary marriage. They would recite the verse in this manner:

“And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them) for a specified period…”

The recitation of the words ‘for a specified period’ by the Sahaba and Taba’een proves this to be the verse dealing with Mutah in which the period of marriage is specified.

Fourth evidence – The fact that the leading Sahaba, Tabayeen and scholars clearly stated that verse 4:24 refers to ‘temporary marriage’ leaves no ground for our opponents to bring absurd excuses. We read the testimony of the great jurist, Mujahid who stated:

“This (verse) revealed for Mut’ah marriage”

Famed Sunni commentator of Holy Quran namely Maqatil bin Sulaiman himself would read the verse in this manner: ‘Then as to those whom you profit by for a specified period” making it clear that according to him this verse refers to temporary marriage.

[iceman]

"Show us mut'ah in the Qur'an"

https://youtu.be/wXLUOrhtxk4