we know shia often defend mut'ah just to have a go at Umar and they say it is highly recommended to practise this "sunnah". However when discussing with shia men or women, all of them always get offended when asked how many times they have done it with other shia men or women. Its like as if mutah is halal but haram at the sametime. Whats the real deal?
Let me answer your question just to prevent you from misleading others about Shiaism, what does Halal mean? Or if something is allowed/permissible what does this mean? Does it mean you have to do it? You must do it? One has to engage in it?why do you always love to sidetrack? Mutah is one of the most virtuous "sunnah" according to your sect. It is not just halal, permissible, but highly recommended. Shia who practise it will get huge amount of rewards. So again, the question is, knowing all those things about mutah, why is that shia always respond as if it is one of the most wicked, filthy, promiscuous act they could ever done? So whats the deal?
why do you always love to sidetrack? Mutah is one of the most virtuous "sunnah" according to your sect. It is not just halal, permissible, but highly recommended. Shia who practise it will get huge amount of rewards. So again, the question is, knowing all those things about mutah, why is that shia always respond as if it is one of the most wicked, filthy, promiscuous act they could ever done? So whats the deal?
As far as Mutah is concerned go and do some research on it. There are plenty of sites that can provide you with information on it. Rather than having the intention of toying and playing. You're not a child and I ain't stupid either.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Akhi, I notice that you don't like the tone that the OP asked his question, but because I am interested in what he was asking, I was hoping you can have the conversation with me instead of him.
My research, may Allah guide you and I to that which He loves and approves of, has led me to believe that Mut'ah is a highly recommended act in the Ja'fari Madhhab. Yet, me experience with Ja'faris, and your posts are an example of this, tend to show a very defensive nature to the act. The question that non-Ja'faris tend to have is, if the act is recommended; then why isn't it more prevalent in Ja'fari culture? Why is it that simply asking about it gets this extremely defensive reaction?
I hope you understand my question and my concerns, brother.
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Firstly you both are using the method of asking. But there is a difference, you want to know and he wants to toy. Or whatever his intentions are. Evidence, take a look at your posts. Look at yours and how you have asked and put forward then take a look at his. Read his first and opening post.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
That's why I said ignore him and have the conversation with me. I personally find it very strange that the Ja'fari Madhhab promotes Mut'ah as such a virtuous deed and yet, discussions about it result in a very defensive response. Can you think of any Sunan that are on the level of Mut'ah for the Ja'afri Madhhab that the rest of the Muslims would be so defensive about? Especially when discussing with other Muslims?
If one asks for the intention and purpose of 'to get to know' like yourself then one can tell and explain. If the intention and purpose is to attack and undermine only then you will see the defensive side, not against Mut'ah but the one who is attacking.
Anyways, lets start off with my understanding of Mut'ah. Marriage is of two kinds, temporary and permanent. You either engage in a full time/permanent martial contract/agreement which is known as Nikah or a part time/temporary martial contract/agreement which is known as Mut'ah.
Both, Nikah and Mut'ah, have rules and regulations and there are circumstances attached to them. There is also a procedure/method concerning both. I believe that both were a common practice during the Prophet's (s) time and are according to Qoran and Sunah. But this will require evidence.
But first we need to understand by getting to know. Agreeing and accepting something is a later stage or you can say are different. If you understand something doesn't necessarily mean you accept and agree. Nikah is common and known so the issue is about Mut'ah.
A few questions first. Once you hit puberty, a girl starts to turn into a woman and a boy into a man. You have sexual desire which kicks in and grows. This is to do with nature and comes natural. Sexual desire or sexual appetite is based on what your body needs. It's a necessity of the body be it human or animal.
Now a general question how does one full fill this need? Yes, patience and control does play a major factor in all areas and parts of life. But as you grow older and time goes by how does one full fill this need? Your partner has past away and one has become a widow/widower, When it comes to your Sexual desire/appetite how does one full fill this need and you have children from your deceased partner.
I can give you many more examples. There is only one way and that is Nikah/marriage. Hang on and wait a minute, marriage is a serious business. Marriage is not just about full filling Sexual need (appetite/desire). It's about finding the right partner, it's about starting a family, it's about building a house together and turning it into a home, it's about having children, it's about responsibility/commitment etc, it's about going through life and then growing old together.
So my question is, it doesn't matter who you are, what your situation/condition is and what ever the circumstances are, how does one full fill their sexual need (appetite/desire)? Not everyone is ready for marriage and taking on the responsibility and everything else that comes with it.
*snip*
I believe that both were a common practice during the Prophet's (s) time and are according to Qoran and Sunah. But this will require evidence.
But first we need to understand by getting to know. Agreeing and accepting something is a later stage or you can say are different. If you understand something doesn't necessarily mean you accept and agree. Nikah is common and known so the issue is about Mut'ah.
*snip*
So my question is, it doesn't matter who you are, what your situation/condition is and what ever the circumstances are, how does one full fill their sexual need (appetite/desire)? Not everyone is ready for marriage and taking on the responsibility and everything else that comes with it.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I hope you know, I'm not really interested in the validity of Mut'ah according to the Ja'fari madhhab and its' evidences. There are ruling in each Madhhab (including my own) which I don't agree with or find to have weak evidences. Hopefully, the discussion doesn't get sidetracked by this.
I'm unfortunately getting the feeling that you are not going to address what I asked...
Unfortunately, instead of actually addressing my question, it seems you are trying to explain the reasons for Mut'ah in a VERY defensive way. Again, I ask you, if you believe that this actions a) is recommended in the Sharee'ah, and b) is the BEST option for the scenarios you provided, then why the defensive nature to the questioning?
I believe that you realize, may Allah bless you, that what you're saying would never be accepted in any culture, religious or otherwise. Which is why, even in cultures that are predominately Ja'afari, Mut'ah is still strictly taboo.
Mu'tah is a haalalised version of prostitution. 8)
Permitting something in exceptional circumstances is not the same thing as outright ecouraging, and endorsing the perverted practice. Your scholars for dollars are guilty for opening the window of Mu'tah for everyone on a full time basis.
Like Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (r.a)?
ibn Abbas was guilty of making a gross mistake. We do not hide from that.
If your read the narration carefuly, he only permitted under dire circumstances unlike your scholars for dollars, and your Imams. It wasn't a free license for anyone to pop their sprogs. 'Ali himself condemned him for this sinful mistake.
Permitting Mutah under dire circumstances is also gross/sinful mistake?
After Imam Ali (a.s) condemned ibn Abbas (r.a) for his (r.a) sinful mistake did ibn Abbas retract from his view/opinion of Mutah being halal in dire circumstances? If yes, then please provide me the evidence for this.
Permitting something in exceptional circumstances is not the same thing as outright ecouraging, and endorsing the perverted practice. Your scholars for dollars are guilty for opening the window of Mu'tah for everyone on a full time basis.
So you're saying that the Prophet (s) made prostitution Halal in the form of Mutah due to exceptional circumstances? Is this what you're saying? You did liken Mutah to prostitution.
Mu'tah like slavery was a perverted practiced from the days of jahiliyah. The Prophet (SAW) did not encourage nor forbid it upfront, but later started to restrict it until he eventually forbidded it unconditionally. This was a method the Prophet (SAW) applied with many vices like alcohol.
Mut'ah During WartimeYou can do long copy & paste job and it is still a fact that shia mut'ah which is anytime anywhere in any situation is not the same to what was practised back then. Shia mutah is just a perverted freesex practise and understandably it is taboo and not many shia man/woman would ever want to get involved in that despicable, filthy acts. As for the ones who keep defending it, i bet you would be mad if your sister, daughter tell you that they want to practise that "noble & virtuous" act 😁
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139:
Narrated Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you."
Mut'ah Banned by Umar
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250:
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:
Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3249:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3261:
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, pbuh), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it.
Mut'ah During Life of Rasulullah
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3252:
Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger pbuh permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.
You can do long copy & paste job and it is still a fact that shia mut'ah which is anytime anywhere in any situation is not the same to what was practised by the sahaba back then. Shia mutah is just a perverted freesex practise and understandably it is taboo and no shia man nor woman would ever want to get involved in that despicable, filthy acts. As for the ones who keep defending it, i bet you would be mad if your sister, daughter tell you that they want to practise that "noble & virtuous" act 😁
Don't hide behind copy and paste, talk about the material put forward. Comment on what is being presented, hadiths/narrations. And don't sound like a child and make everything personal.The copy paster is you 😛
The copy paster is you 😛
dont keep avoiding the question. You know yourself shia mutah is a filthy practise. So you would be so glad if your sister & daughter want to do it? 😁
The copy paster is you 😛
dont keep avoiding the question. You know yourself shia mutah is a filthy practise. So you would be so glad if your sister & daughter want to do it? 😁
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3252:
Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger pbuh permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.
@iceman,
You missed out some more hadiths regarding mut'ah from Sunni sources (or you might be doing cherry picking I should say). Those hadiths should be sufficient because they were narrated by none other than your esteemed Imam:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527 :
Narrated by 'Ali bin Abi Talib
On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 432 :
Narrated by 'Ali
Allah's Apostle prohibited Al-Mut'a marriage and the eating of donkey's meat in the year of the Khaibar battle.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 50 :
Narrated by 'Ali
I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith Number 3264.
Chapter: Temporary marriage and its prohibition for all times to come.
Malik narrated this hadith on the authority of the same chain of transmitters that 'Ali b. Abi Talib said to a person: You are a person led astray; Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) forbade us (to do Mut'a), as is stated in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya b. Malik.
Another cherry picking. The very next hadith in Sahih Muslim relating the same incident and clearly clarifies "....I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off."
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Hadith Number 3253 :
Rabi' b. Sabra reported that his father went on an expedition with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) during the Victory of Mecca, and we stayed there for fifteen days (i.e. for thirteen full days and a day and a night), and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted us to contract temporary marriage with women. So I and another person of my tribe went out, and I was more handsome than he, whereas he was almost ugly. Each one of us had a cloaks, My cloak was worn out, whereas the cloak of my cousin was quite new. As we reached the lower or the upper side of Mecca, we came across a young woman like a young smart long-necked she-camel. We said: Is it possible that one of us may contract temporary marriage with you? She said: What will you give me as a dower? Each one of us spread his cloak. She began to cast a glance on both the persons. My companion also looked at her when she was casting a glance at her side and he said: This cloak of his is worn out, whereas my cloak is quite new. She, however, said twice or thrice: There is no harm in (accepting) this cloak (the old one). So I contracted temporary marriage with her, and I did not come out (of this) until Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) declared it forbidden.
@iceman
Why are you running scared from the 12th Imam rep thread?
Every shia seems to be like you hiding from it.
Permitting something in exceptional circumstances is not the same thing as outright ecouraging, and endorsing the perverted practice. Your scholars for dollars are guilty for opening the window of Mu'tah for everyone on a full time basis.
So basically temporary marriage was allowed and it was practiced BUT, there is a BUT. But what? The Prophet (s) banned it or put a stop to it. Ok, certain people disagree with that. So how do we resolve this? Lets resolve it your way, any proof from the Quran that it was prohibited? 😊
That's exactly what it is. Today we returned to the jaliyah stage where a man sees naked women all the time.
Lol. I know your game and stance. Get personal as much as you like. I will definitely not fall to your level. You won't get a reaction out of me regarding your personal stunts.seeing your reaction here, you know shia mutah is despicable. An act which shia says gives such a huuuuge rewards but yet gives shia such a shock & horror reaction when a simple question "have you done it?" was asked 😂😂
Are you married? If yes then how many wives do you have? Only one? Well you're allowed up to four at any one time. Give a second marriage a thought and see what you're up against. Just trying to make a point.😂 shia believes a man who did mutah once will be saved from the Hellfire, twice will be in the company of virtuous men in Jannah, but did it three times, they will be Prophet's companion in highest Jannah. And yet, shia feel angry and shock everytime. You sheeps should be doing mutah at least once. Be proud and unleash your sister & daughter and chase for that highest jannah. You know shia mutah in reality is just freesex 😂😂
You won't be getting any personal reaction out of me. I have character.
seeing your reaction here, you know shia mutah is despicable. An act which shia says gives such a huuuuge rewards but yet gives shia such a shock & horror reaction when a simple question "have you done it?" was asked 😂😂
😂 shia believes a man who did mutah once will be saved from the Hellfire, twice will be in the company of virtuous men in Jannah, but did it three times, they will be Prophet's companion in highest Jannah. And yet, shia feel angry and shock everytime. You sheeps should be doing mutah at least once. Be proud and unleash your sister & daughter and chase for that highest jannah. You know shia mutah in reality is just freesex 😂😂
Then, get married... 😑😌
You probably believe that the Shias hold such view, I don't. Mutah is not an open and common practice among Shias as is Nikah. It is permissible due to exceptional circumstances. It is just used by anti Shias to paint a bad pictures about Shiaism and to put people off.Not really, its not non shia who believes how despicable shia mutah is. Even sane shia knows its just a despicable freesex act. Dont tell me about exceptional circumstances BS, because it cant be further from the truth.
If my sisters or daughters wanted to do it then would I be glad? I am going to answer this in two parts.If i know theres an act with the same amount of rewards like shia mutah, i will try my best to do it at least once. I definitely wont be defensive and mad when someone ask me if ive done it 😛
Firstly it's not want or wanting, it's about need. It's about exceptional circumstances and those who feel the need. My sisters, daughters or nieces don't feel the need or don't have those exceptional circumstances or the situation or condition where they feel the need.cut the exceptional circumstances BS excuse. Shia mutah is allowed to be practise in any circumstances, just like shia taqiyya.
Just because my sisters etc feel this way and have not or do not want to engage in Mutah doesn't mean it's bad or Haram. And those men and women who have exceptional circumstances or situation/condition and feel the need are not engaging in Haram, committing sin or doing anything wrong.no, im sure any chaste respectable shia woman will hate mut'ah to the bone.
Due to exceptional circumstances if someone is on a situation or condition where they feel the need only then Mutah is better than engaging in Haram and committing sin. As far as I'm concerned, no. I have never been engaged in Mutah. Why? Not because I think it's bad or strange but because I don't feel the need. Just as simple as that.this is the 3rd time you mention exceptional circumstances BS. This i shia anytime any ciecumstances version of mutah.
Secondly let me ask you this, you are allowed to have more than one wife. Yes sir. You can have up to four at any one time. Now if you decided to remarry, have a second wife then tell me would your first wife be glad about it? Would she be over the moon that my husband is going to follow the Prophet's (s) sunah? Would she be sending out and distributing your wedding cards? And if you had children out of your first marriage how would they feel? Would they be proud of you?If do it once is promised jannah, twice to be with pious person in jannah and to do it 3 times will make me enter the highest jannah, i will definitely do it. But then again, some shia is so brain damaged and get offended when people ask why they didnt do mutah which they themselves believe is virtuous act.
We do not believe that the Prophet (s) prohibited it. We don't believe he put a total stop to it and banned it. Why? Because why was it allowed in the first place? Answer, due to EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Ok. So why did the Prophet (s) ban it? Where did the EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES go? Did they suddenly fade away?😂 shia reasoning. Like i said, the fact is shia is allowed to practise it even when theres no exceptional circumstances, exactly the same like shia taqiyya. You cant use exceptional curcumstances excuse to get out of this mess
Firstly it's not want or wanting, it's about need. It's about exceptional circumstances and those who feel the need. My sisters, daughters or nieces don't feel the need or don't have those exceptional circumstances or the situation or condition where they feel the need.
Just because my sisters etc feel this way and have not or do not want to engage in Mutah doesn't mean it's bad or Haram. And those men and women who have exceptional circumstances or situation/condition and feel the need are not engaging in Haram, committing sin or doing anything wrong.
Due to exceptional circumstances if someone is on a situation or condition where they feel the need only then Mutah is better than engaging in Haram and committing sin. As far as I'm concerned, no. I have never been engaged in Mutah. Why? Not because I think it's bad or strange but because I don't feel the need. Just as simple as that.
Secondly let me ask you this, you are allowed to have more than one wife. Yes sir. You can have up to four at any one time. Now if you decided to remarry, have a second wife then tell me would your first wife be glad about it? Would she be over the moon that my husband is going to follow the Prophet's (s) sunah? Would she be sending out and distributing your wedding cards? And if you had children out of your first marriage how would they feel? Would they be proud of you?
Not really, its not non shia who believes how despicable shia mutah is. Even sane shia knows its just a despicable freesex act. Dont tell me about exceptional circumstances BS, because it cant be further from the truth.
If i know theres an act with the same amount of rewards like shia mutah, i will try my best to do it at least once. I definitely wont be defensive and mad when someone ask me if ive done it 😛
cut the exceptional circumstances BS excuse. Shia mutah is allowed to be practise in any circumstances, just like shia taqiyya.
no, im sure any chaste respectable shia woman will hate mut'ah to the bone.
this is the 3rd time you mention exceptional circumstances BS. This i shia anytime any ciecumstances version of mutah.
If do it once is promised jannah, twice to be with pious person in jannah and to do it 3 times will make me enter the highest jannah, i will definitely do it. But then again, some shia is so brain damaged and get offended when people ask why they didnt do mutah which they themselves believe is virtuous act.
😂 shia reasoning. Like i said, the fact is shia is allowed to practise it even when theres no exceptional circumstances, exactly the same like shia taqiyya. You cant use exceptional curcumstances excuse to get out of this mess
Mutah was permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time and the reason and purpose was 'EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES'. This is absolute and clear.
With in the 12er Shia school are you sure its only for EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES? Do you have hadith?
Also, in the 19 minute mark Rajabali says its execption, but the 12er Shia make it sound like its sunnah and rewarding. So if it rewarding why it is exceptional?
....
With in the 12er Shia school are you sure its only for EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES? Do you have hadith?
Also, in the 19 minute mark Rajabali says its execption, but the 12er Shia make it sound like its sunnah and rewarding. So if it rewarding why it is exceptional?
I'm not surprised by the illiterate response. You asked and I answered. But you deliberately left an important point out. Mutah was permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time but why was it prohibited? Why was it banned? What was the reason for it?Because my question is not about why shia does mutah. The reason you do mut'ah is irrelevant? For sure shia do mutah even when theres no exceptional circumstances. What is relevant which was my original question:
It was permissible and practiced due to exceptional circumstances but what happened to those exceptional circumstances? Were they temporary? Do we not have the same exceptional circumstances after Mutah was banned?
Or these days do we not have exceptional circumstances? This is the kind of discussion I like and want. And this is what I would like you to comment on. But with your behaviour and attitude based on your mentality, I don't think you can engage in a civilised and pleasant discussion.
Mutah was permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time and the reason and purpose was 'EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES'. This is absolute and clear. Now why did the Prophet (s) all of a sudden prohibit it? When it comes to Hadiths and Narrations there are strong and weak. Some are accepted and some not. We believe the Prophet (s) did not prohibit Mutah and you claim he did.You idiot, again it doesnt matter whether you believe its halal and i believe its haram. Why do shia have to be angry when someone ask that question? Its definitely because you are ashamed. How can anyone be ashamed when someone ask if he has done a "virtuous act"? :D
Give me a solid argument. 1, Do you have or can you give me anything from the Qoran that Mutah is prohibited? And 2, If the Prophet (s) did prohibit Mutah then WHY? Come on Hadrami, lets here it. Give me a solid argument rather bagging and bashing the Shias with your immature and out of character attitude and behaviour.
You idiot, again it doesnt matter whether you believe its halal and i believe its haram. Why do shia have to be angry when someone ask that question? Its definitely because you are ashamed. How can anyone be ashamed when someone ask if he has done a "virtuous act"? :D
Allow me to answer this. First of all when it comes to Ahle Sunah scholars and books written by them, you have many. And I mean many. Now if I selected one book and pointed out something from that book that, 'look what is written here' or I pick one Suni scholar and point out his statement based on his understanding and point of view that, 'look what this scholar has said',
then try to implement this on the entire Ahle Sunah and assume that this is part of Ahle Sunah belief and faith and every Suni accepts and believes in this then, would this be true? I'm I doing the right thing? Is this acceptable?
The answer obviously is NO. There are a lot of things in books written by Ahle Sunah scholars and some of the books are even considered heavily AUTHENTIC but are not accepted. Suni people will turn around and say and have said,
"yes this book is authentic and reliable but I'm sorry we don't accept that bit. Or that bit is considered weak or shady. The same thing applies to Suni scholars. Some scholars are even rejected if not bits and pieces of what they've said or written.
Exactly the same applies to the Shia. I have an open mind. I am sensible and understanding. And I'd like to remain this way. I discuss and debate with reason and logic.
Listen up, I/we consider Qoran to be 100% authentic. No other book has the same status and recognition as the Qoran. I/we believe in Allah and Allah alone and accept every single thing from Allah.
Yes we do believe in the Prophet (s) and the 12 guides (Imams). But apart from this we have been told by our Imams and we are aware of this that, a lot will be put forward and presented that this is from the Prophet (s), he said this and this is from the Imam/s, they said that but it won't be from them.
When questioned about how to distinguish or how to know what is from them and what isn't, we were told to take what ever is presented to us with the label of the Prophet (s) or the Imam/s and measure it with the Qoran.
If it is exact and according to the Qoran, you can find something in the Qoran to justify it and back it up then accept and take it. Otherwise 'SLAM IT AGAINST THE WALL', in other words REJECT IT.
This is one thing. I do not and I repeat, I DO NOT take everything that every single Shia scholar says or written in their book at face value.
Can you provide Hadith from 12er Shia books which state it's for exceptional circumstances?
Was Mutah permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time or not? Answer, yes it was. Why? Due to and for exceptional circumstances. Why was Mutah suddenly prohibited? What was the reason for it? These are the main questions and the important part of the discussion which is being avoided. WHY?
You know the answer to these questions, as you have provided evidences from the Sunni hadith books. Do I need to repeat what you already stated? However, what about the 12er Shia books? Are you certian in the 12er Shia history this was a conditional marriage? If it was where are the hadith? Do they not exist. Is 12er Shia just a sect which has no backbone and like to play with the differences among the sahaba?
These are cheap and low shots from you. We have much more than a backbone. We don't play with the differences among the Sahaba. In fact you do that. Anyways, where is your backbone? I don't need to provide you with anything because the matter is crystal clear.
I don't need to provide you with anything because the matter is crystal clear.Where is it crystal clear in the 12er Shia hadith books that Muta is done in exceptional circumstances.
Once again;
==
Ali said: “Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person.”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Volume 4 Page 41
First of all don't call me an idiot. WATCH AND CONTROL THAT MOUTH OF YOURS.I can call a sheep as it is, an idiot. You are being asked why youre angry when someone ask you about mutah and then answer mutah is halal bla bla bla. My question is not about halal & haram idiot. My question why shia are always angry & defensive when it comes to mutah if its really halal & virtuous act? Start answering the question
Answer what is being asked. If you can't then stop jumping up and down or diverting attention.
I can call a sheep as it is, an idiot. You are being asked why youre angry when someone ask you about mutah and then answer mutah is halal bla bla bla. My question is not about halal & haram idiot. My question why shia are always angry & defensive when it comes to mutah if its really halal & virtuous act? Start answering the question
okay if you have a backbone then where are the 12er Shia hadith? Why are you being a coward? Please provide it.
Where is it crystal clear in the 12er Shia hadith books that Muta is done in exceptional circumstances.
Iceman I am not here to argue whether Muta is haraam or halaal. There are Sunni hadith which state is halaal as presented by you. This does not make a loser in anyway. I am aware that the sahaba differed in this matter. However, what I am interested is do the 12er Shia have hadith where it states Muta is an exception marriage.
Thank you very much for bringing something new and fresh to the discussion. Now we're talking about whether it (mutah) is Halal or Haram. There is a difference in opinion now. Is this correct?
First let me give you my perspective so that this doesn't come into yours or anyone's mind that I avoid.
Mutah is permissible and practiced according to the Shia just as it was permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time.
Why is it permissible and practiced according to the Shia? Exactly for the same reasons and purpose when it was permissible and practiced during the Prophet's (s) time. And that is,
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
obviously.
Now evidence, proof, justification etc.
Here is a question we need to ask ourselves based on information and statistics due to reality and facts.
And here comes the question;
Is Mutah practiced in and by the Shia community OPENLY And COMMONLY?
Is Mutah practiced in and by the Shia community REGULARILY. and ORDINARILY just as Nikah, permanent marriage?
Go and do a survey, look into things openly, fairly and justly and you will come up with the information.
The answer is NO. I was asked a very simple and straightforward question about Mutah concerning my self and my sisters, daughters etc.
Being straightforward and open, I haven't engaged in Mutah, neither has any member of my family. As a Shia I am not aware of anyone who has engaged in Mutah and I don't know any Shia who has.
This doesn't mean we are ashamed of Mutah or we think it's embarrassing to engage or it is seen as something terrible and horrible or we think it's Haram.
I need to clear any misunderstanding here. Mutah is permissible and practiced according to the Shia just as it was in the Prophet's (s) time and for exactly the same reasons and purpose. And because it is not practiced within and by the Shia on a common and regular basis clearly tells you it's based on exceptional circumstances.
Otherwise it would be practiced commonly and openly.
Mutah is there only for exceptional circumstances and is for those who need it based on there situation and condition.
Can you show me Hadith from 12er Shia books where it's for exceptional circumstances only?
May Allah forgive some of the brothers for their behavior, the akhlaq here is just...
I
Anyway, inshallah maybe I can still have some sort of discussion with iceman after all of this. Since there has been so many posts since my last reply, I'm just going to not quote and reply to the general points.
1. Comparing Mut'ah to polygamy does not work for multiple reasons. Reason #1, Mut'ah is highly recommended in the Twelver Madhhab while polygamy ranges from recommended to merely mubah for mainstream Muslims, therefore you are comparing apples with oranges. Reason #2, polygamy is in fact widely practiced among mainstream and Ja'fari Muslims all over the world. In fact, it is practiced by non-Muslims all over the world as world. There may be some stigma, but it is no where near to the level of Mut'ah. Take for example the practice that some women do where they themselves will marry off their husbands to a second wife. Now try to imagine that happening with a woman marrying her husband off for a Mut'ah marriage. Such a thought is practically inconceivable.
2. Comparing Mut'ah to secretly marrying a second wife is again, comparing apples to oranges. Marrying a second wife secretly ranges from mubah to makrooh to haram among mainstream Muslims; no mainstream Muslim would claim there is reward in secretly marrying a second wife.
3. Mut'ah being allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's lifetime doesn't help your case as ALL thing that were prohibited by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were technically practiced during his lifetime. One example that Shi'as continuously bring up is Taraweeh. We both agree that is was practiced during the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's lifetime, yet we disagree on the ruling afterwards. You believe he prohibited it and it is an evil practice, much like our understanding of Mut'ah.
4. Your appeal to Bukhari and Muslim is interesting. Do you believe those two authors (including ALL Sunni books of hadeeth that mention this discussion) included these narrations because they believed Mut'ah to be halal? Have you ever read the other narrations in the chapter?
Inshallah some of the people here clean up their manners. I am with the Shi'is here that claiming that Mut'ah is prostitution is akin to accusing the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما of endorsing prostitution والعياذ بالله. I would ban anyone who said that if I was a mod here.
Inshallah some of the people here clean up their manners. I am with the Shi'is here that claiming that Mut'ah is prostitution is akin to accusing the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما of endorsing prostitution والعياذ بالله. I would ban anyone who said that if I was a mod here.Will you tell other sunni who say taqiyya is for serial liar that they are insulting Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? Shia loves comparing what Amr ibn Yasir did with their taqiyya too? Do you think he would endorse shia taqiyya? I dont think so.
I'm absolutely sure my questions can't be answered. Now what are we left with? Oh yes, me answering and dealing with everything you throw out.This is a topic for 12er Shia view. If you have questions start you own topic.
Can you tell me if Mutah isn't down to exceptional circumstances then what is it for? Is Mutah a common practice according to the Shia? Do you see Mutah done on a regular basis by the Shia community? Is Mutah an ordinary act amongst the Shia? You and I both know that the obvious answer is NO.To be honest I don't know the 12er Shia view. In fact, the hadith I have read from your books an it gives you an open ticket with rewards to do muta. Its not an exceptional marriage. Its an encouraged sunnah in your books. So again please show me your view supported by 12er Shia hadith.
Shia or Suni books might be very important to you but not to me.Then how do you follow the 12 Imams? Its comes from the 12er Shia books, so the hadith should be important. Aql is a fallible thought which can be rational or subjective.
Now you need to provide me,Open a new topic.
Will you tell other sunni who say taqiyya is for serial liar that they are insulting Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? Shia loves comparing what Amr ibn Yasir did with their taqiyya too? Do you think he would endorse shia taqiyya? I dont think so.
The mut'ah that was halal is not the same mut'ah (freesex) that shia are practising. Dont give the false impression that they are the same mutah that ibn Abbas practise. As for expecting shia to answer, im sure they wont, because for years none have. Deep down they know shia mutah is filthy practise 😆
May Allah forgive some of the brothers for their behavior, the akhlaq here is just...
Anyway, inshallah maybe I can still have some sort of discussion with iceman after all of this. Since there has been so many posts since my last reply, I'm just going to not quote and reply to the general points.
1. Comparing Mut'ah to polygamy does not work for multiple reasons. Reason #1, Mut'ah is highly recommended in the Twelver Madhhab while polygamy ranges from recommended to merely mubah for mainstream Muslims, therefore you are comparing apples with oranges. Reason #2, polygamy is in fact widely practiced among mainstream and Ja'fari Muslims all over the world. In fact, it is practiced by non-Muslims all over the world as world. There may be some stigma, but it is no where near to the level of Mut'ah. Take for example the practice that some women do where they themselves will marry off their husbands to a second wife. Now try to imagine that happening with a woman marrying her husband off for a Mut'ah marriage. Such a thought is practically inconceivable.
2. Comparing Mut'ah to secretly marrying a second wife is again, comparing apples to oranges. Marrying a second wife secretly ranges from mubah to makrooh to haram among mainstream Muslims; no mainstream Muslim would claim there is reward in secretly marrying a second wife.
3. Mut'ah being allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's lifetime doesn't help your case as ALL thing that were prohibited by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were technically practiced during his lifetime. One example that Shi'as continuously bring up is Taraweeh. We both agree that is was practiced during the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's lifetime, yet we disagree on the ruling afterwards. You believe he prohibited it and it is an evil practice, much like our understanding of Mut'ah.
4. Your appeal to Bukhari and Muslim is interesting. Do you believe those two authors (including ALL Sunni books of hadeeth that mention this discussion) included these narrations because they believed Mut'ah to be halal? Have you ever read the other narrations in the chapter?
Inshallah some of the people here clean up their manners. I am with the Shi'is here that claiming that Mut'ah is prostitution is akin to accusing the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما of endorsing prostitution والعياذ بالله. I would ban anyone who said that if I was a mod here.
First of all I didn't and wasn't comparing Mutah to Polygamy. I don't think you've read some of the posts. I was asked why Shia see Mutah as permissible but when asked about whether they've practiced it or not or how many times they or their women have done it then the Shia start to get embarrassed.
Certain people wanted to know why something was considered permissible (Mutah) by the Shia and they are quick to verbally defend and justify it but when speak or ask about practicing it then Shias get angry and see Mutah as something shameful, disgraceful and embarrassing.
This is what I commented on. I wasn't comparing Polygamy to Mutah but just put forward an example that this is also permissible but when it comes to practicing then it is seemed as something disgraceful, embarrassing and troublesome. That is going for a second wife. Forget about the third and don't even think about the 4th.
This was my point that having a second wife is permissible and also Sunah of the Prophet (s) but when it comes to practicing, going for a second wife is like starting world war 3. Why is Polygamy permissible but when it comes to practicing then it is shameful, embarrassing and troublesome for the majority.
This is the point Hadraami skipped as well as many others.
we know shia often defend mut'ah just to have a go at Umar and they say it is highly recommended to practise this "sunnah".
why do you always love to sidetrack? Mutah is one of the most virtuous "sunnah" according to your sect. It is not just halal, permissible, but highly recommended. Shia who practise it will get huge amount of rewards. So again, the question is, knowing all those things about mutah, why is that shia always respond as if it is one of the most wicked, filthy, promiscuous act they could ever done? So whats the deal?
My research, may Allah guide you and I to that which He loves and approves of, has led me to believe that Mut'ah is a highly recommended act in the Ja'fari Madhhab. Yet, me experience with Ja'faris, and your posts are an example of this, tend to show a very defensive nature to the act. The question that non-Ja'faris tend to have is, if the act is recommended; then why isn't it more prevalent in Ja'fari culture? Why is it that simply asking about it gets this extremely defensive reaction?
Iceman I am not here to argue whether Muta is haraam or halaal. There are Sunni hadith which state is halaal as presented by you. This does not make a loser in anyway. I am aware that the sahaba differed in this matter. However, what I am interested is do the 12er Shia have hadith where it states Muta is an exception marriage.
Assalāmu `alaikum Warahmatullāhi Wabarakatuh brother Khaled.
If you search for brother Ebn Hussein's post, he has posted fatwas by Shia's high profile scholars giving permission for perverts to indulge in wide-range of sex episodes. After reading them then you'll come to the realisation, that only a nymphomaniac would entertain such perverted inhibitions.
Alhamdulillah, many 'Ulema have drawn parlallels between prostitution, and Mu'tah.
The Prophet (SAW) making an exception for 3 days is one thing, but the Shia scholars who allow it whenever, and whereveris not the same thing. Remember the Prophet (SAW) allowed many practices, as I mentioned before, that we would deem unacceptable today: from consumption of alchohol, slavery, marrying one's stepmother after their father has deceased; to even marrying very young girls at tender ages. All these were practices were common to Jahaliyah Arabs. Some of these customs survived, but with refined conditions, and others were abolished. The fact the Prophet (SAW) unconditionally forbade Mu'tah with the exception of a one-off occasion speaks volume it is a practice, that's not for the faintest of hearts.
Those who use Mu'tah as a free license to get around indeed satanic perverts. Technically their Iman hangs on a thread, but in reality, their Imaan is extinguished by their wanton, flagrant acts of immorality of the worst kind. They must understand the enormity and notoriety of their misdeeds of sexual perversion and immorality of the worst kind. While these old louts have their legs hanging in the grave, they are impervious of death stalking them. Such are people are no doubt the Shias.
Brother Khaled, if you review the entire thread, do some simple research, and apply your mind, Insh'Allah you'll understand the alikeness between the two. If not, then there is nothing more to discuss. It's a futile discussion to have at best.
Alhamdulillah, neither of us engage in Mu'tah, and believe in its the prophetic prohibition. That's the main thing.
I can't find any threads, just a blog post which shows a fatwaa where a Shi'i scholar says it is permissible to do Mut'ah with a whore.
So you didn't answer if "whoaretheshia" posted a suckling adults post if you would be convinced that "Sunnism" allows this. You didn't answer the scholars who stated Mut'ah was akin to prostitution. Nor did you show me how Mut'ah is akin to prostitution.
I believe my posts are self explanatory. If you believe otherwise, we'll just leave it at that.
I didn't mention any names because I refuse to spoon feed you brother. Keep persevering, and you'll stumble upon something of significance sooner rather later.
Raising the consensus of a few scholars who permitted such an act to establish mahram relation between two people does not deter from the very reality, that the practice of Mu'tah between two people is hardly different than a random couple having a one night stand, and/or becoming sex buddies for as long as they desire.
I've nothing more to contribute to this thread.
First of all do the vast amount (majority) of Shia scholars say that this is a virtuous act? I'm not interested in one or two Shia Scholars or books because Scholars vary in opinion and sometimes to great length.
For example, this is off topic/subject but just to prove a point,
there is a joint statement from Ayatollah Khaminei and Sistani that Shias should refrain from such actions and acts based on custom/tradition which give Shias a bad name or where Shias are looked at strangely. Some where along those lines. For example, to commemorate Imam Hussain's martyrdom in a particular fashion where you batter and bloody yourself.
On the other hand you have Ayatollah Khorasani and Shirazi who allow such Azadari and deem it permissible or even necessary and part of the Shia faith and belief. This is how much scholars can differ in fatwa, statement and opinion.
There is also another example, Ali yun Waliyullah, scholars even greatly differ on this too. Some say it is part of the Azaan and Iqamat and others say it is not.
Back to the topic. One needs to understand fully and completely about Any Fatwa or statement given by a scholar. For example, 'Mutah is a virtuous act' What does this mean? Virtuous act like Nimaz eTahajut, Nimaz r Shab? No, absolutely not. Where everyone and anyone should be free to do and engage.
Mutah is a virtuous act but for who? And why? Those with exceptional circumstances depending on their situation and condition where one fears or eventually and secretly indulges in Haram/sinful acts it is highly recommended and a virtuous act with rewards from refraining from Haram and sinful acts and deeds.
If Mutah was a virtuous and rewarding act in the Ja'fari Madhhab like saum and salah for instance then people would engage in it openly and commonly. It would be a regular act and practice, which it is not.
Once again Mutah is there for those who feel the urge and need. Those with extreme circumstances and in difficult conditions. Those who most definitely know that they will end up doing something sinful/Haram.
Those who don't have the knowledge and understanding is one thing but to deliberately try to point score and make the other sect look bad based on sectarian hatred is another.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, exceptional circumstances. This is exactly what Mutah is for. It's not a common thing or ordinary practice within Shia. You've answered it yourself. Why use something, manipulate it then blow it out of proportion and try to paint a bad picture about the Shia.
This is what I'm trying to get at; maybe I'm wrong and its not a recommended act in the Ja'fari madhhab. Yet, I have never come across a Ja'fari scholar who discourages Mut'ah, or says that it is anything less than mustahabb. Perhaps you will show me a scholar who does, or you can show Rationalist a hadeeth that say Mut'ah is only in certain circumstances.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاتهThis is what I'm trying to get at; maybe I'm wrong and its not a recommended act in the Ja'fari madhhab. Yet, I have never come across a Ja'fari scholar who discourages Mut'ah, or says that it is anything less than mustahabb. Perhaps you will show me a scholar who does, or you can show Rationalist a hadeeth that say Mut'ah is only in certain circumstances.
*sigh*
I don't know where to begin. First of all, you are right, this is off topic. Second of all, I'm amazed at this level of contradiction considering a) you follow infallible Imams, b) you are so critical of the Sunni madhhabs; but that's not our topic. Thirdly, if you wanted to prove your point, you could've shown a statement by an Ayatollah saying "you shouldn't do Mut'ah in certain situations because..." as that is our discussion at hand.
Virtuous as in it is mustahabb, as in one is rewarded for doing it. As far is it being better than Tahajjud (is that what you are saying?) and the other prayer (again, I apologize, I can't tell what you are saying); my understanding is that it is WAY better than those things. My understanding is that doing it four times well get you into heaven on the same leve as the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Can you possibly say that about the prayers you mentioned (or anything else really)?
Finally, a response that actually addresses the topic. Problem is, this seems to be your personal explanation. Is there any reference that one has to be in exceptional circumstances for it be a virtuous act? One hadeeth, statement of an Imam, fatwa of a Marji'... anything...
I don't hate Shi'as, and I think you can see with how I've responded with Hadrami and Opitmus Prime, I am VERY fair in Ja'fari/Mainstream Muslim discussions.
Problem is the rampant contradictions between what you are saying, and what we read Shi'a scholars say, and what the ahadeeth and statements of the Imams claim. The fact that it is not practiced in a widespread way like fasting and salah is exactly the point of this thread; if it is in fact something which can lead me to heaven, which is it treated like such a taboo subject. The answer I got from you is it is a circumstantial thing. I am willing to accept that; now, can you provide any evidence that this is the case in the Ja'fari Madhhab?
بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك
Wa Alaykumus Salaam. This is really getting very long and uneccesarily.
Don't we have any sense? *snip* I will continue this.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Don't you think that the reason this thread has gotten so long is because you're not addressing the contents of the thread? You were called out several times for beating around the bush and not discussing the issues brought up. What this does is create more issues, and we now have several NEW issues that you have yet to address; making the discussing even longer. So lets try to summarize this and make it as concise as possible:
1) What is the ruling for Mut'ah in the Ja'fari madhhab?
2) If it is at least mustahabb, why is it so taboo in Ja'fari communities?
3) Is there any fatwas or ahadeeth which mention that Mut'ah is for certain circumstances? As you know, the fatwas we read and the ahadeeth that are quoted always seem to imply that the virtue of the act is unrestricted.
4) Do you believe that Bukhari, Muslim and other early hadeeth scholars mentioned the narrations that "Omar banned Mut'ah" because they believe Omar DID ban Mut'ah, or did they have other intentions?
5) Why did you think you were making a point when you said that "Mut'ah was allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's time"? This one is real confusing to me because ALL things that were haraam were allowed until the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم banned it.
6) New issue: I was reading this thread on shiachat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054737-can-i-have-mutah-with-different-men/ Why do you suppose everyone was discouraging her from doing Mut'ah with multiple men and some even accused her of being Salafi/Wahhabi? How does this reconcile with the ahadeeth we read which say that the more you do Mut'ah, the more reward you will get (as is mentioned in the latest post by Muslim720)?
With all due respect, but that right there is why this thread has gotten so long. Please try to stay on topic without appealing to "logic"; I am appealing to "logic" as well since we are both having a debate about this topic. Just like you believe what I am saying is irrational, I think what you are saying is irrational and doesn't have textual basis. As a result, you and I have a conversation actually addressing each other's points so we can reach a common word, بارك الله فيك. We both believe in the Qur'an, the Sunnah and appealing to logic and reason. So lets try to stay on topic so that this discussion can move forward, أحسن الله إليكم.
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Salaam brother. Ok.....lets see if I can get through to you on this occasion.
You asked,
"What is the ruling for Mut'ah in the Ja'fari madhhab?"
My answer, the ruling is clear.
In response to a question about Mutah, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei responded and declared that Mutah (temporary marriage) is not only permissible but rather it is Mustahabb (highly recommended). Ayatollah Khameini said:
“Although mut‘ah marriage is permissible, or rather mustahabb [highly recommended] in our view, it is not obligatory in shar‘[iah].”
Q: If in the mukallaf’s country/city the common view considers mut‘ah marriage as a slander or accusation in such a way that a believer is accused of being not religious and having illegal relations or even despised if he/she does it, what is the ruling, then?
A: Although mut‘ah marriage is permissible, or rather mustahabb in our view, it is not obligatory in shar‘. Therefore, if it leads to conflict, accusation or vile consequences matters that are not acceptable by the Divine Legislator, it is rendered impermissible for the mukallaf to be indulged in such a marriage.
Now what does this mean and what do we take from it?
There are two things here,
1, it is permissible. 2, or rather mustahabb.
Note the difference here and how it has been said.
Why is it permissible? Just for the same reason and purpose the Prophet (s) deed it permissible.
To be continued!
If the Prophet (s) banned it because ALLAH PROHIBITED IT then the matter is crystal clear. If it's from ALLAH then it is absolutely obvious that it has to be in the QORAN.
And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. [59:7]
Also can you provide me with an absolute clear Hadith that the Prophet (s) said Mutah was only permissible due to exceptional circumstances.
Several points:
#1 If something is prohibited by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it doesn't need to be prohibited in the Qur'an. This is basic Usool al-Fiqh. Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
#2 If the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prohibited us from Taraweeh, then the matter should be crystal clear in the Qur'an. Notice how that doesn't make any sense.
#3 I don't believe the Imam is crystal clear in the Qur'an (or in there at all).
#4 The names of the 12 Imams (or any of them) is not found in the Qur'an, FAR more important than the prohibition of Mut'ah.
Nonetheless, what you're saying is soundly rejected because no Muslim jurist, mainstream or Ja'fari, ever made the claim that for a prohibition to be valid from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم we have to find in the Qur'an.
I never made that claim, rather it was you that made that claim. I claimed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't prohibit it right away, like he didn't prohibit all kinds of things right away that later because haram; i.e. alcohol, renaming adopted children's lineage etc. The burden of proof is on you since you claimed it. So, either provide a hadeeth or a fatwa stating so, or else this is just your personal madhhab and not representative of the Ja'fari madhhab.
Please also address all the points before trying to address something new. It makes it look like you don't have a reply to the other points, بارك الله فيك. Here are the issues for reminder:
1) What is the ruling for Mut'ah in the Ja'fari madhhab? *answered* It is mustahabb according to Ayatollah Khamini.
2) If it is at least mustahabb, why is it so taboo in Ja'fari communities?
3) Is there any fatwas or ahadeeth which mention that Mut'ah is for certain circumstances? As you know, the fatwas we read and the ahadeeth that are quoted always seem to imply that the virtue of the act is unrestricted.
4) Do you believe that Bukhari, Muslim and other early hadeeth scholars mentioned the narrations that "Omar banned Mut'ah" because they believe Omar DID ban Mut'ah, or did they have other intentions?
5) Why did you think you were making a point when you said that "Mut'ah was allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's time"? This one is real confusing to me because ALL things that were haraam were allowed until the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم banned it.
6) New issue: I was reading this thread on shiachat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054737-can-i-have-mutah-with-different-men/ Why do you suppose everyone was discouraging her from doing Mut'ah with multiple men and some even accused her of being Salafi/Wahhabi? How does this reconcile with the ahadeeth we read which say that the more you do Mut'ah, the more reward you will get (as is mentioned in the latest post by Muslim720)?
If the Prophet (s) banned it because ALLAH PROHIBITED IT then the matter is crystal clear. If it's from ALLAH then it is absolutely obvious that it has to be in the QORAN.
Can you provide me with the verse/s from the Qoran where Allah has prohibited Mutah and because of this direct order and command from Allah the Prophet (s) banned it.
Brother, InshaAllah! I will prove to you from Quran using Shia hadeeth that permissiblity of Mutah has been abrogated.
But before I do that you need to honestly answer some simple questions.
Do you think permanent marriage is better than Mutah(temporary) marriage or not ? Like suppose there is a Shia sister who has an option to marry a guy in any of the two marriages. That is, permanent or Mutah. So which one of these would be better according to YOU. ?
Brother, InshaAllah! I will prove to you from Quran using Shia hadeeth that permissiblity of Mutah has been abrogated.
But before I do that you need to honestly answer some simple questions.
Do you think permanent marriage is better than Mutah(temporary) marriage or not ? Like suppose there is a Shia sister who has an option to marry a guy in any of the two marriages. That is, permanent or Mutah. So which one of these would be better according to YOU. ?
assume it's your own sister. What would be better for her . Temp marriage or permanent .
Second, it all depends on the sister in question and her guardians and family. She and they are well aware of their circumstances, situation and condition. I am not and this is not for me to decide on.
assume it's your own sister. What would be better for her . Temp marriage or permanent .
Also could you give any scenario wherein temp marriage would be better than a permanent one, when they dont have any problem for performing either of the one?
Listen, I don't know what you're getting at or what you're trying to prove here but my simple questions which are extremely important are not being answered. I wonder why.😂😂😂 as if you have answered the question of this thread. Its 107 posts and still sidetracking. Why an act that is soooooo virtuous and recommended is considered taboo by shia. First you make up excuse i was rude, fair enough, but you still didnt answer when Khalid asked the same question. Want to use rude excuse on Khalid too? 😂😂
Why can't you just answer the questions and then by all means ask? The Prophet (s) permitted Mutah, why and what for? He (s) banned Mutah, why and what for? What was the reason and purpose for Mutah to be permissible and then prohibited? Just simple and straightforward questions.
Listen, I don't know what you're getting at or what you're trying to prove here but my simple questions which are extremely important are not being answered. I wonder why.I was expecting this kind of reaction from you, because I know its quite a tough job to answer this simple question, and you don't have the guts to answer it. Anyways, we know what is better from the two(temp or permanent marriage) by looking at the percentage of marriages occurred in Shia community. And for sure, the percentage of permanent marriages that occur in Shia community is way more than the temp. marriages(Mutah).
If the Prophet (s) banned it because ALLAH PROHIBITED IT then the matter is crystal clear. If it's from ALLAH then it is absolutely obvious that it has to be in the QORAN.
Can you provide me with the verse/s from the Qoran where Allah has prohibited Mutah and because of this direct order and command from Allah the Prophet (s) banned it.
😂😂😂😂 still diverting from what is being asked. Where are other shias when you need them. I guess most of them knows shia mut'ah is filth
The reason why Mutah is permissible, highly recommended is because it was banned by rulers after Muhammad (s) and it is considered as something bad in fact terrible by Muslims and in the Muslim community. The Shia Scholars issue fatwas or give statements to bring back the reputation and value of Mutah which has been damaged, damned and cursed by certain Muslims and their school of thought.Ok so shia sholars said it was highly recommended because they want to clean up mutah reputation eh? In that case ayatula should try it first and mutah their daughters. Go to your scholars and ask their daughter for mutah and lets see if they practise what they preach. Lets see how they will give fatwa that is is highly recommended to slap your face 😂😂
Will continue this.
Ok so shia sholars said it was highly recommended because they want to clean up mutah reputation eh? In that case ayatula should try it first and mutah their daughters. Go to your scholars and ask their daughter for mutah and lets see if they practise what they preach. Lets see how they will give fatwa that is is highly recommended to slap your face 😂😂
😂😂😂😂 still diverting from what is being asked. Where are other shias when you need them. I guess most of them knows shia mut'ah is filth
What's your opinion on Mutah? Do you believe it is filth?😊try asking your shia scholar to let their daughter to do mutah which they themselves said is "highly recommend". Lets see if your shia scholars think highly of shia mutah's reputation 😂😂
Here we go again. This is what you said and they are your words;
Now lets examine what you said bit by bit.
"I believe the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم permitted it because it was a practice which Allah hadn't prohibited"
Ok, so you believe that the Prophet (s) permitted Mutah, not because of Allah that Allah ordered it to be permissible, but because of the Prophet (s). In other words it was the Prophet's (s) own action.
Excuse me, the Prophet (s) permitted it and there was no order or indication from Allah of it being permissible or prohibited. But the Prophet (s) banned it because Allah indicated and ordered it to be prohibited? Because Allah prohibited it?
Any order or indication from Allah of anything being permitted or prohibited has to be in the Qoran and Gabriel comes to Muhammad (s) with verse/s of it being permitted or prohibited.
Now this is what is logical and makes sense;
The prophet (s) permitted Mutah but there has to be a reason and purpose for why apart from " because Allah didn't prohibit it'. Because if Allah didn't prohibit it then he also didn't make it permissible. This was the sole action of the Prophet (s) but why?
Now if the Prophet (s) banned it then you bring Allah as the reason for it. But why ban it? This doesn't make any sense.
Now you mentioned this;
"And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. [59:7]"
Now if the Prophet (s) gives you something, take it. Do you have to take it? Would this be compulsory, wajib? And if you don't take it then you're committing Haram?
You're getting all mixed up here. Take this; if the Prophet (s) prohibited Taraweeh then this is different than,
the Prophet (s) banned Taraweeh because Allah prohibited it. See the difference. The first one wouldn't be in the Qoran because it is from the Prophet (s) alone and his own action.
But the second is also the Prophet's (s) action but it is not from the Prophet (s) but from and because of Allah and HAS to be in the QORAN.
Lets all calm down and relax. I see emotions are running very high here and absolutely unnecessary.☺
I don't know how many times I need to say, repeat and answer. Anyways, lets have another go.
Secondly sense and logic, reality and facts have their place then Qoran and Sunah. If something doesn't make sense, isn't logical, is not according to reality and facts, doesn't fit in or add up then it can't be in and from Qoran and Sunah. This is what my belief is based on. I don't know about yours.
Thirdly it's got nothing to do with my sister, daughter, neice etc or yours or anybody else's. Mutah is highly recommended but for who? For what? And why is it highly recommended? Please shake off and get rid of that mindset and start thinking straight.
The reason why Mutah is permissible, highly recommended is because it was banned by rulers after Muhammad (s) and it is considered as something bad in fact terrible by Muslims and in the Muslim community. The Shia Scholars issue fatwas or give statements to bring back the reputation and value of Mutah which has been damaged, damned and cursed by certain Muslims and their school of thought.
Will continue this.
The Prophet (s) made Mutah permissible and you don't know why? What was the reason and purpose you don't know. What, this was top secret and had to be kept discreet? The best you can do ànd come up with is 'forget about why'.
Mutah is not about choice but it is a solution for those who have harsh conditions, are in difficult situations or face complicated circumstances. All you need to do is use your sense and think with logic.
Mut'ah Banned by Umar *snip*
try asking your shia scholar to let their daughter to do mutah which they themselves said is "highly recommend". Lets see if your shia scholars think highly of shia mutah's reputation 😂😂
I quote the saying of your Imam. Are you saying your Imams differ with each other?
Firstly Shia Scholars differ in thought, opinion and point of view just exactly as the Suni Scholars do. Same applies to books written by Shia or Suni Scholars. One shouldn't handpick something at random just to prove their point according to their mindset be it Shia or Suni.
Secondly sense and logic, reality and facts have their place then Qoran and Sunah. If something doesn't make sense, isn't logical, is not according to reality and facts, doesn't fit in or add up then it can't be in and from Qoran and Sunah. This is what my belief is based on. I don't know about yours.I say, it's not necessary that your mind to be considered the tool to judge a thing. There are people who followed this path and have been led astray. For example: There are people who believe that a virgin lady giving birth to a child without a man touching her is against sense, logic, reality and facts. Hence they rejected that maryam(as) could give birth to Isa(as) without a man touching her. Hence they went astray.
Thirdly it's got nothing to do with my sister, daughter, neice etc or yours or anybody else's. Mutah is highly recommended but for who? For what? And why is it highly recommended? Please shake off and get rid of that mindset and start thinking straight.The question was not about what is recommedable. But rather the question was about which out of the two was better than the other. And you failed to even give a scenario wherein Mutah would be better than permanent marriage.
The reason why Mutah is permissible, highly recommended is because it was banned by rulers after Muhammad (s) and it is considered as something bad in fact terrible by Muslims and in the Muslim community. The Shia Scholars issue fatwas or give statements to bring back the reputation and value of Mutah which has been damaged, damned and cursed by certain Muslims and their school of thought.That's incorrect and this misconception has been shattered, if you want to live with your misconceptions then it's up to you. But the fact is that, We have proven Mutah to be prohibited from Quran and the authentic narrations of Prophet Muhammad(saws). So it's just a lie by Shia scholars who say Mutah was banned by Rulers.
Will continue this.
Now if Mutah was considered taboo in the Shia community then people wouldn't practice it all. And they would advise others not to as well giving their reasons. What ever fatwa or statement a Shia Scholar has given one needs to ask that particular scholar for a detailed explanation rather than taking it at face value and giving it your own meaning and explanation based on your own understanding and mindset.Please don't put words in my mouth just to make things easy for you. Where did I say that Mutah is considered a taboo in Shia community?
I have said this before and I will say it again that when it comes to my sister or daughter, it is not for me to choose for them. In fact it is down to them. And if they choose not to engage in Mutah then that is their choice. Just because they choose not to doesn't mean Mutah is bad or it is taboo with in Shia community.Calm down. I did not say Mutah is considered bad by Shias. It's was your misunderstanding.
The Prophet (s) made Mutah permissible and you don't know why? What was the reason and purpose you don't know.who said we don't know? We know it. And we know that it's situation was similar to the case of meat of swine, blood, etc. which means they are haram in general sense but was made permissible during necessity. However, later Mutah was made haram till qiyamah, hence one can't do it out of necessity also.
Again the Prophet (s) prohibited Mutah and you can't come up with a single answer to why? What was the reason and purpose you don't have the faintest, is this what you're telling me? Is this what your faith and belief is based on?The similitude of Mutah is Alcohol. Allah said in Quran: {They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit."...2:219}
Brother Khaled mentioned that the Prophet (s) banned Mutah because Allah prohibited it, he hasn't come up with the Quranic text of where and when Allah prohibited it.Alhamdulillah! I have proven from Quran, using both Sunni and Shia hadeeth that Mutah has been abrogated. Refer post 110. And I don't find any academic refutation to it from your side.
And if she's not interested then what? Does he force her?😀 No matter what Shia Scholars think they can't force anyone to engage. Can you if you believed in Mutah? Just because you believed in Mutah does that mean you would encourage your sister or daughter?i didnt tell anyone to force. Just go to your scholars and ASK. Just ask their daughters for mutah. Thats all you need to do and lets see how those pimps in turban react to your question 😂😂
Is this what you're trying to get at? You can't even force or push even encourage your sister or daughter in to nikah never mind about Mutah. Sort yourself out.😁
i didnt tell anyone to force. Just go to your scholars and ASK. Just ask their daughters for mutah. Thats all you need to do and lets see how those pimps in turban react to your question 😂😂
Here are my list of questions from earlier, which you again, ignored. Please notice question number 4.
1) What is the ruling for Mut'ah in the Ja'fari madhhab? *answered* It is mustahabb according to Ayatollah Khamini.
2) If it is at least mustahabb, why is it so taboo in Ja'fari communities?
3) Is there any fatwas or ahadeeth which mention that Mut'ah is for certain circumstances? As you know, the fatwas we read and the ahadeeth that are quoted always seem to imply that the virtue of the act is unrestricted.
4) Do you believe that Bukhari, Muslim and other early hadeeth scholars mentioned the narrations that "Omar banned Mut'ah" because they believe Omar DID ban Mut'ah, or did they have other intentions?
5) Why did you think you were making a point when you said that "Mut'ah was allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's time"? This one is real confusing to me because ALL things that were haraam were allowed until the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم banned it.
6) New issue: I was reading this thread on shiachat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054737-can-i-have-mutah-with-different-men/ Why do you suppose everyone was discouraging her from doing Mut'ah with multiple men and some even accused her of being Salafi/Wahhabi? How does this reconcile with the ahadeeth we read which say that the more you do Mut'ah, the more reward you will get (as is mentioned in the latest post by Muslim720)?
I quote the saying of your Imam. Are you saying your Imams differ with each other?
I say, it's not necessary that your mind to be considered the tool to judge a thing. There are people who followed this path and have been led astray. For example: There are people who believe that a virgin lady giving birth to a child without a man touching her is against sense, logic, reality and facts. Hence they rejected that maryam(as) could give birth to Isa(as) without a man touching her. Hence they went astray.
Also your self made methodology has been refuted by Imam Ali.
Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra) said, “If the religion were based upon one’s opinion, one might expect the bottom of the leather sock to be wiped instead of the top, yet I have seen the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, wiping over the upper part of his leather socks.” [Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 162; Sahih]
As per logic the sock which we wear is to be wiped at the bottom not the top, yet we do it because Prophet(saws) did it.
Similarly, Imam Abu Hanifah said, ‘If I were to rule according to my opinion, I would have made ghusl necessary after urination as it (urine) is impure by consensus and [I would have made] wudhu [necessary] from semen as its impurity is disputed’”
[Mirqātul Mafātīḥ, volume 2, page 480]
Logically speaking urine is impure by consensus and semen being impure is disputed. Yet, we are commanded to take bath after semen discharge but not urine, even though urine is more impure.
Similarly another example is about salah(prayer) and Fast(sawm). We know that the importance of prayer is higher than Fasting, yet for the menstruating woman Allah has Obligated the woman to make up for her Fasts rather than her Prayers’.
I can give you more of such examples to show your utter ignorance and deviance.
The question was not about what is recommedable. But rather the question was about which out of the two was better than the other. And you failed to even give a scenario wherein Mutah would be better than permanent marriage.
That's incorrect and this misconception has been shattered, if you want to live with your misconceptions then it's up to you. But the fact is that, We have proven Mutah to be prohibited from Quran and the authentic narrations of Prophet Muhammad(saws). So it's just a lie by Shia scholars who say Mutah was banned by Rulers.
The first question has been answered.
that "Second question has also been answered but due to the ignorance of some individuals I will answer again. Mutah is not considered taboo in the Ja'fari community. I don't know where and how you got or came up with this.
You are not from this community so why make and exaggerate claims when you are not from a particular community. I don't see shias coming up here and considering and claiming about Mutah.
If members of that community came forward and claimed then we have some weight and an issue. Otherwise people are just jumping up and down trying to save a lost argument.
Number 3 has also been answered but will answer again.
Mutah is a virtuous act but for who? And why? Those with exceptional circumstances depending on their situation and condition where one fears or eventually and secretly indulges in Haram/sinful acts it is highly recommended and a virtuous act with rewards from refraining from Haram and sinful acts and deeds.
Once again Mutah is there for those who feel the urge and need. Those with extreme circumstances and in difficult conditions. Those who most definitely know that they will end up doing something sinful/Haram.
The Prophet (s) made Mut'ah permissible, why and for what reason and purpose? The answer given was 'exceptional circumstances'. Can anyone give me a clear and cut hadith written in black and white that the Prophet (s) made Mut'ah permissible only for exceptional circumstances? Or if someone can answer why the Prophet (s) made Mut'ah permissible?
If you ask you must also answer. When you demand you must also provide. Number 4, what do you think and make of those narrations about Omar banning Mut'ah, this is what you suppose to address rather than constantly questioning unnecessarily just to avoid answering and addressing.
Are you telling me before Muhammad (s) there was no religion or faith from Allah? Is alcohol and pork not Haram according to the bible? Please do correct me. There were people who followed the religion of Abraham passed on through David, Moses and Jesus before Muhammad (s).
What was permissible and what prohibited what allowed and what disallowed was in place before Muhammad (s). This is where I disagree with you. Muhammad (s) didn't introduce Islam in fact he introduced the final revelation. Islam was already in place before Muhammad (s).
Ok, we have two parts here; any principle, rule and regulation, any concession or benefit given, such as mutah, if misused or abused would consider to be wrong. Now before we speak about this particular woman you mention lets get something straight.
About Mut'ah and what Shia Scholars say about it, which you mention and quote, is this the fatwa or statement of one or two scholars or does the vast majority of the Shia scholars hold the same view? If the vast majority say and agree then we have something to discuss and this can be implemented on the Shia community. But if it's just one or two odd scholars then that is their point of view which they need to elaborate. This can't be implemented and labelled on the entire Shia community.
Now the woman you speak about firstly how true this story is or not one needs to look into.
Secondly this is exactly my point that if we go by the fact that in the Shia community Mutah is something that is practiced commonly then what's all the fuss about.
This woman who is told off not because mutah is seen as taboo but because it isn't a common practice and it is down to exceptional circumstances otherwise why is she told off? Going by your statements and claims she shouldn't be told off but she is. Why, exactly my point that it's based on exceptional circumstances and mutah is there and available for need and if needed. Not for choice or do as you please.
None of you belong to the Shia community so why are you so ignorant on this? What do you know about the Shia community? Making claims and then being ignorant. You claimed that the Prophet (s) banned mutah because Allah prohibited it. This definitely needs to be proven from the Qoran.
As far as my Imams are concerned or even the Prophet (s) as a matter of fact, anything attributed to them needs to be looked at and carefully examined. I do not accept anything and everything at face value. Are we clear on this? A lot of things have been attributed to them that this is what they said and this is from them but in fact it's got nothing to do with them. They are either false to begin with or are exaggerated or fabricated full stop.
My mind is not the tool to judge. Neither is my thought or opinion that important. I'm talking about reality and facts, don't ignore them and don't forget to use sense and logic.
A woman becoming pregnant and giving birth without touching a man isn't against reality and facts or against sense and logic. It all depends on the time and generation. These days this isn't strange or considered impossible. Test tube babies is your answer. But going back to Mother Mary and the birth of Jesus, those where different times.
You've said it yourself. Why do I need to answer something which I've answered in great detail. Which is better nikah or mutah? I say why even ask when facts and statistics are there? In the Shia community which is commonly practiced and which isn't? It's absolutely obvious, NIKAH. Why even ask which is known based on facts and statistics. This is my point that Nikah is commonly practiced and mutah isn't. Why? Not because Mut'ah is taboo but because it's there for exceptional circumstances.
I agree with you, that's why I think the attribution to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Imams that Mut'ah is a highly recommended act is a LIE. I think this is actually one thing we agree on.
I'm so confused, are we to use or minds or not?
So, according to you, a woman claiming to get pregnant without a man touching her is possible, because today we have test tube babies.
What is your evidence it is there for exceptional circumstances? Fatwa, hadeeth, anything please. You keep claiming this, then asking us to prove it, its the strangest argument I have ever seen.
Mut'ah Banned by UmarRefer this article, which refutes this misconception:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250:
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:Jabir(ra) was not aware that mutah was prohibited by the Prophet(Saws). When he was made aware, he sided with the consensus, which is that mutah is prohibited.
Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3249:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.
The first to make Mut’ah haraam was Umar”The book you quoted is mentioned as a Shia reference on a Shia website.
Kitab al-Awail, page 1 by Hilal al-Hasan al-Askari (Madina, Saudi Arab)
"Indeed, the Sahaba deemed Umar to be a liar when it came to this issue".wrong. Rather Umar(ra) was praised by Ali(ra) for upholding the Sunnah and this can be proven from Shia book Nahjul balagha.
We read in Tafseer Kabeer page 41:The narration is unreliable because, it's reported from Al-Hakam bin Abi Utaibah. Al-Hakam, however, was born after the death of Ali according to several scholars. See his biography in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb.
Ali said: “Had Umar not banned Mut’ah then the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person.”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Volume 4 Page 41
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Abu Auwanah Yaqoob bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Nisaburi al-Isfraeini (d. 316 H) popularly known as Abu Auwanah records the following in his book Mustakhraj Abi Auwanah, Volume 7 page 159 Hadith 2713:
“Yaqoob bin Sufyan – Amr bin Asim – Hamaam – Qatadah – Abi Nadhra said: ‘I said to Jabir bin Abdullah that Ibn Abbas permits Mut’ah while Ibn al-Zubair prohibits it. He (Jabir) replied: ‘It is through me that this hadith has been circulated, I performed Mut’ah along with Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and a verse was revealed regarding it but then when Umar bin al-Khatab become the caliph, he addressed the people and said: ‘The Quran is the same Quran, the apostle is the same apostle, and there existed two types of Mut’ah at the time of Allah’s apostle, I forbid both and will punish whoever performs them, one is the Mut’ah of Hajj, surely you have to separate your Hajj from your Umra, and the other is Mut’ah al-Nisa, if I catch any person who is married for an appointed duration (Mut’a), I will certainly stone him (to death).”
A similar account can also be read in Tarikh Madina via a variant chain of narration:
Muhammad bin Jaffar – Shu’aba – Qatadah – Abi Nadhra said: ‘Ibn Abbas (ra) used to permit Mut’ah whereas Ibn al-Zubair forbade it, thus I mentioned that to Jabir bin Abdullah and he replied: ‘Through me this hadith been circulated, we performed Mut’ah with Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) but when Umar became the ruler he said: ‘Allah would allow His Messenger to do whatever He wished, verily the Quran’s revelation has been completed, thus perform Hajj and Umra as Allah ordered you in a complete form and perform wedlock with women in a complete form, if I catch a man who has performed temporary wedlock with a woman, surely I will stone him’’’.
Imam Saaduddin Taftazani states in Sharh Maqasid, Volume 3 page 512:
“It has been narrated that Umar said: ‘Three things existed during the time of Allah’s Messenger, I forbid and make them Haram, these are Mut’ah al-Nisa, Mut’ah al-Hajj and “Hay ala Khayr al-Amal”…the answer is that this is issue of Ijtihad”.
Sharh Maqasid, Volume 3 page 512
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Saeed bin Mansur (d. 227 H) records the following admission of Umar in his authority work Sunan Saeed bin Mansur, Volume 1 page 218 Tradition 852:
Saeed – Hushaim – Khalid – Abu Qulabah from Umar bin al-Khatab said: ‘Two types of Mut’ah were there during the time of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and I prohibit both and will punish whoever performs it, Mut’ah with women and Mut’ah of Hajj’
Imam Sarkhasi records:
“It is Sahih that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) prohibited the people from committing Mut’ah and said: ‘Two types of Mut’ah existed during the time of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and I prohibit people from them, Mut’ah al-Nisa and Mut’ah al-Hajj’”.
We read in Kanz al-Ummal:
“Two types of Mut’ah were present during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s), I prohibit them both, Mut’ah of Nisa and Mut’ah of Hajj”
In Tafseer Kabeer:
Umar said: “Two Mut’ah’s existed during Rasulullah’s lifetime and I now prohibit both of them.”
Tafseer al Kabeer, by Imam Fakhr ul-Razi, Page 42 & 43
Among the Shia I met, I was told that Mut`ah is widespread.
Never in the Hadith of the Imam was Mut`ah done for the purpose of "getting to know" someone, it's always clearly highlighted that it's about seeking sexual pleasure (aka Mut`ah).
People can get to know each-other without Mut`ah, who told you talking to the opposite gender is Haram?
No one is forced into celibacy, you can marry another poor person or a person of your level.
Hani, the contract two individuals make before entering nikah mut'ah can have a wide variety of stipulations, just like permanent nikah. Saying that you've never heard of the Imams of the Ahl Al Bayt(as) referring to mut'ah in a particular context doesn't prove anything.
The observable fact is that mut'ah is used as a means for couples to get to know each other. If you doubt this, it just means you don't know Shia society.
Non-marital relations can't achieve this in the same way. Two non-mahrams talking with each other, as you mention, is completely different from a mut'ah, without intercourse, where a young couple can become much more familiar.
For some people it may be fine to marry someone they've never even met before - they have that choice if they want. But this is not suitable for everyone. Similarly, contracting mut'ah to check for compatibility is not for everyone, but some people prefer to do it that way and that is their right.
Celibacy is the natural result of people closing off temporary marriage, because permanent marriage is not possible for many people. Your idea that poor people can marry poor people as the solution is contrary to the reality across the Muslim world, where young people find themselves unable to marry until well into their twenties or thirties. And what about widowed or divorced older women, who may find it difficult to find suitors for permanent marriage?
You need to consider the wider needs of society as a whole, and the provision of nikah mut'ah is one aspect of this.
Hani, your account of what you believe goes on in Iran and Iraq continues to betray the fact that you have little knowledge of these societies and have probably never visited them.
Evidently, you get your information from highly biased sources with little credibility.
By referring to nikkah mut'ah as "adultery", you are actually showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet(saws), since all Muslims agree that he instructed the sahaaba to perform mut'ah.
Rather than calmly and rationally discussing the subject at hand, you are using such strong language that you are saying things you don't mean; I suggest you reflect on your motivations and reconsider your approach.
Again you are asking for "evidence" of something whose validity isn't in question. It's an observable fact that mut'ah is used by couples to see if they're compatible for permanent nikah, so what point are you trying to make by questioning how frequently this was done in past ages?
Islam is suitable for all times and places and it offers us solutions to life as befits the circumstances we find ourselves in. Having a second, third or fourth wife was common in certain regions historically, whereas it's rare today; either way is valid under Shari'ah. Do you have an objection to this?
Regarding the issues faced by unmarried youth across the Muslim world, the scale of the current problem belies the notion that it can be solved in the manner you suggest.
Asking "lazy governments" to make "economic reforms" is admirable, but it's not a direct solution to the problem.
As an aside, if you don't mind me asking: how many Muslim countries have you travelled to? And what is your means of knowing the societies you discuss?
The observable fact is that mut'ah is used as a means for couples to get to know each other. If you doubt this, it just means you don't know Shia society.
Non-marital relations can't achieve this in the same way. Two non-mahrams talking with each other, as you mention, is completely different from a mut'ah, without intercourse, where a young couple can become much more familiar.
They've actually been brought up in a world full of hatred towards Shias and a lot of nonsense concerning Shiaism. And their mind has developed and matured based on that grudge and hatred. So I completely understand their feelings and emotions.
They speak with a mindset. Unless they discuss with an open and free mind it is going to be hard for them to understand and difficult for us to get through to them. But as for you, very well said and put forward. More Shia brothers like you need to step forward and deal with this propaganda against Shiaism and the misunderstanding it's creating about Shias.
GreatChineseFall What you've just done is to repeat one of the most notorious slanders against the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws).
The Holy Prophet(saws) said that Imam Hassan(as) and Imam Hussein(as) are "Sayyid Al Shabaab Ahl al-Janna", the Masters of the Youths of Paradise; whereas you say that Iman Hassan(as) "married frequently and divorced frequently".
It's the word of the Holy Prophet(saws) against your word, and that means that your word is falsehood.
Please learn some respect and find a more constructive use for your energies.
Hani, your account of what you believe goes on in Iran and Iraq continues to betray the fact that you have little knowledge of these societies and have probably never visited them.
Evidently, you get your information from highly biased sources with little credibility.
By referring to nikkah mut'ah as "adultery", you are actually showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet(saws), since all Muslims agree that he instructed the sahaaba to perform mut'ah.
Rather than calmly and rationally discussing the subject at hand, you are using such strong language that you are saying things you don't mean; I suggest you reflect on your motivations and reconsider your approach.
Again you are asking for "evidence" of something whose validity isn't in question. It's an observable fact that mut'ah is used by couples to see if they're compatible for permanent nikah, so what point are you trying to make by questioning how frequently this was done in past ages?
Islam is suitable for all times and places and it offers us solutions to life as befits the circumstances we find ourselves in. Having a second, third or fourth wife was common in certain regions historically, whereas it's rare today; either way is valid under Shari'ah. Do you have an objection to this?
Regarding the issues faced by unmarried youth across the Muslim world, the scale of the current problem belies the notion that it can be solved in the manner you suggest.
Asking "lazy governments" to make "economic reforms" is admirable, but it's not a direct solution to the problem.
As an aside, if you don't mind me asking: how many Muslim countries have you travelled to? And what is your means of knowing the societies you discuss?
GreatChineseFall What you've just done is to repeat one of the most notorious slanders against the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws).
The Holy Prophet(saws) said that Imam Hassan(as) and Imam Hussein(as) are "Sayyid Al Shabaab Ahl al-Janna", the Masters of the Youths of Paradise; whereas you say that Iman Hassan(as) "married frequently and divorced frequently".
It's the word of the Holy Prophet(saws) against your word, and that means that your word is falsehood.
Please learn some respect and find a more constructive use for your energies.
If we feel secure in what we are following, we don't feel the need to slander others and bring them down; instead we reach out to pull them up.
Again tell the fetuses dropped in the back alleys of Tehran how great of a solution Mut`ah is to society.not just fetuses. Its nightmare for the women and children involved. The men can just say bye and go. For all the crazy things that Saddam did, banning mut'ah was one of his greatet act. This is old article about mut'ah in iraq post invasion
- What is the benefit of being able to stipulate something that you can revoke anytime you wish? That's like you saying "I promise I will not punch you in the face until I punch you in the face"
- Why is it allowed to engage in mut'ah with a Kitabi woman but a permanent marriage with them being forbidden? What is the purpose of knowing each other in this case?
- Why is it allowed for a man who is married with 4 women (ie the max number of permanent wives one can have) to engage in mut'ah. Who is he supposed to get to know?
Hani, our madhab is not based on denigrating Abu Bakr and 'Umar, so even if every hadith in favour of them were authentic, there would be no contradiction with our beliefs.
What we say about them is that they were not divinely appointed to lead the Ummah, and that they were not the most qualified individuals to take up the position of leadership after the Holy Prophet(saws).
Since Sunni scholarship doesn't necessarily disagree with either of these two points, I believe we find ourselves in consensus here.You are wrong dear friend. Sunni scholarship believe Abubakr was the most superior of all companions, the most qualified and the most deserving of Caliphate. He also proved his qualities during his Caliphate and so did his successor.
There is a walk which takes place from Najaf to Karbala and over 30 million people participate, making it the largest annual gathering in the world. All along the route are mu'mineen providing free food and free accommodation.
You may experience more love, generosity and hospitality in a few days there than in all of your previous life combined.
All Muslims, and indeed all humanity, are welcome.
[ERASED]
By turning away from the teachings of Ahl al Bayt(as) the Sunni world found itself with a gap in its social structure, and tried to fill that gap with misyar and 'urfi marriages.not comparable. The sunni scholars who supported it are very few, unlike mut'ah which is consensus among shia scholars. Even the few sunni scholars who supported it dont consider it as practise which is so virtuous like how shia scholars consider mut'ah. A person with a tiny spec of decency left in him/her will reject shia version of mut'ah for him/herself and for the people they love. That is why shia always in defensive and feel insulted when anyone ask them about it. That is a fact and no amount of dancing around will change it.
Haha, these desperate Shias trying to make out like the pilgrimage to Karbala is superior than going for Umrah, or Haj.
[ERASED]
Mod Note: Please avoid jokes like that.
GreatChineseFall What you've just done is to repeat one of the most notorious slanders against the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws).Lol, how is the word of brother against word of Prophet(saws) ? Can't Imam Hasan(ra) be Master of the youth of paradise if we married frequently and divorced frequently? Who exactly made this criteria?
The Holy Prophet(saws) said that Imam Hassan(as) and Imam Hussein(as) are "Sayyid Al Shabaab Ahl al-Janna", the Masters of the Youths of Paradise; whereas you say that Iman Hassan(as) "married frequently and divorced frequently".
It's the word of the Holy Prophet(saws) against your word, and that means that your word is falsehood.
Please learn some respect and find a more constructive use for your energies.
As for what you wrote above, it is erroneous, when temporary marriages were permitted they weren't adultery, they became adultery after they were forbidden.
Lol, how is the word of brother against word of Prophet(saws) ? Can't Imam Hasan(ra) be Master of the youth of paradise if we married frequently and divorced frequently? Who exactly made this criteria?
Here is SHia hadeeth for you.
Kafi by Shaikh Kulaini (ra), Volume 6, Page 56, Section on divorcing the unsuitable woman
4 - حميد بن زياد عن الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة عن محمد بن زياد بن عيسى عن عبد الله بن سنان عن أبي عبد الله ع قال : إن عليا قال وهو على المنبر : لا تزوجوا الحسن فإنه رجل مطلاق فقام رجل من همدان فقال : بلى والله لنزوجنه وهو ابن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وابن أمير المؤمنين ع فإن شاء أمسك وإن شاء طلق
4- Humaid b. Ziad from al Hasan b. Muhammad b. Sama'a from Muhammad b. Ziad b. Isa from Abdullah b. Sinan from abi Abdullah (as) who said: Indeed Ali (as) said, while he was on the pulpit: "Do not arrange marriage with al Hasan, for indeed he is a man who constantly divorces." So a man from Hamdan stood up then said: "Rather, by Allah (swt) we will definitely arrange marriage with him, he is the son/progeny of the Prophet (pbuh) and the son of commander of the faithful, so if he wishes he may keep and if he wishes he may divorce."
مرآة العقول في شرح أخبار آل الرسول للمجلسي ج ٢١ ص: ٩٦ (الحديث الرابع) موثق
Miratul uqool by Majlisi, Volume 21, Page 96: Hadith 4: Muwaththaq (Reliable)
And here is the explanation by a Shia Scholar:
http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2013/07/reason-behind-imam-hasans-numerous.html
Astagfrullah. I believe It's true now what people say about this website. It's got nasbies posing as sunnis. Comments like this prove it. I can't believe nobody has objected to this filthy comment.
I just don't know where on earth you get your information from😊 You don't have a clue about the Shia faith and community at large.
Search the forum. There are quotes from your own scholars who're quoting narrations from your own books.please keep the discussion civil brother. No need to use words like accursed sect. Please refrain from using such words in future posts .
We don't make things up. We Ahlus Sunnah are on haq, and trail the path to Jannah. We have no reason to make up fairytales like your accursed sect does.
please keep the discussion civil brother. No need to use words like accursed sect. Please refrain from using such words in future posts .
You are wrong dear friend. Sunni scholarship believe Abubakr was the most superior of all companions, the most qualified and the most deserving of Caliphate. He also proved his qualities during his Caliphate and so did his successor.
Claiming consensus on something like this is laughable.
Noor-us-Sunnah, the ahadith you've quoted from Shia books do not prove your intended point, because Shia scholars do not consider the hadith books to be infallible.It does, because I quoted the grading of the hadeeth by Majlisi for that hadeeth, who considered it reliable. Hence I would be leaving the argument you made based on your ignorance. Since it was a waste of time.
You question if marrying and divorcing frequently should be considered a slur against Imam Hassan's(as) honourable position. How can it not be?So based on your ignoramous argument Shia scholars who considered that hadeeth reliable insulted Imam Hassan(ra). Great!
Furthermore, Muslims agree that divorce is an act very much disliked by Allah(swt), the most hated act that He has made permissible. How can "Sayyid Al Shabaab Ahl al Jannah" be someone who performs hundreds of times over an act hated by Allah?Divorce is disliked when it is done without a genuine reason. Why are you so pessimist in regards to Hassan(ra) that you think it is to be considered without a genuine reason? Why can't you be optimistic like Shia scholar Yusuf Bahraini who explained this incident in positive manner, justifying the act of Hassan(ra).
Myself & others have strongly objected to such comments that can be construed as offensive.
From my understanding such posters go too far in their condemnation of the shirk related practices carried out at these shrines like kerbala to such an exteme that they have no respect for the grandson of the holy prophet SAW.
Anyways back to the subject.
Your integrity is questionable ibrahim especially due to your dishonest propaganda that shia don’t slander the first 3 caliphs & that the only issue is they don’t deem them to be the most suited for leadership.
This alone exposes your agenda & academic seriousness.
Also there are many points raised by the brothers above, maybe you can respond to these.
I
Regarding Shia slander the first 3 Sunni Caliphs, this is unacceptable when it occurs and is widely denounced by Shia scholars.
Actually in my experience most Shia Muslims very rarely talk about Abu Bakr, 'Umar or 'Uthman at all, and when the scholars mention them to discuss the issues surrounding them, they simply outline the points of dispute without any slander or disrespect.
A couple of the brothers here have objected to the comparison of Shia mut'ah marriage with Sunni misyar and 'Urfi marriage.I can almost say sunni scholars are in consensus when it comes to rejecting opinion for marriage with the intention of divorce. Those who do are a very tiny minority whose opinion are even rejected by their own peers. Youre trying to portray as if those are like shia mut'ah which there is not a single shia scholar ever objected to plus it is considered as one of the most virtuous act of worship. How desperate are you to compare that with mutah.
The items raised, such as no time period being stipulated, and different opinions among Sunni scholars regarding their legality, do not detract from the point being made.
If you criticise mut'ah for perceived sexual licence, when you have misyar and 'urfi being used across the Sunni world for exactly the same reason, you're effectively criticising Islam as a whole.Across the sunni world? 😂😂 Lets say for argument sake it is which isnt true, it surely is way more strict than anytime, anywhere, any reason shia mutah which is a license for freesex even a 1 night stand.
Look at the bigger picture: those who stand to gain the most if Sunnis denigrate mut'ah and Shia denigrate 'urfi and misyar, are the opponents of Islam who wish to see Islam as a whole in disarray. They don't care about Shia or Sunni.Opponents of islam are those who are not muslim as well as those who said they are muslim and yet have always denigrating the best of generation, the companions. You know well, who they are.
Isn't it better to accept that some people, who are in a situation you yourself may never have been in, have a legitimate need for something which all Muslims agree was legitimised by the Holy Prophet(saws) and practiced by the sahaaba?Nope, mutah has been made haram. Even when it was still halal, it is not comparable with shia version of mutah.
What about Ziyrat al Ashraa where Lana is sent on the first, second and third? Also, isn't tabarra and tawalla a pillar in your sect? As for slander, don't majority of the dozeners believe Umar killed Fatima?
Noor-us-Sunnah, your response does nothing to undermine what I've already outlined, a principle common to Shia and Sunni alike:
Our beliefs, whether general 'aqeeda or opinions on other issues, are not determined by isolated or weak ahadith which are at odds with scholarly consensus.
I gave you a direct example from Sunni narrations to exemplify this. The presence of a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, where a portion of the Holy Qur'an was lost due to being eaten by a goat (na'udhubillah), does not mean Sunni Muslims have to accept that the Holy Qur'an is incomplete. Instead, the hadith itself is rejected.
especially since Allama Majlisi's primary aim was to collect available hadith rather than to authenticate them.
Noor-us-Sunnah, your response does nothing to undermine what I've already outlined, a principle common to Shia and Sunni alike:My response has actually exposed your ignorance. Readers have witnessed this fact. It isn't necessary that you admit that your ignorance was exposed.
Our beliefs, whether general 'aqeeda or opinions on other issues, are not determined by isolated or weak ahadith which are at odds with scholarly consensus.Your comment again exposed your ignorance. The hadeeth I quoted is not weak rather it is muawthaq, which means reliable. As for it being isolated then let me quote what Shia scholar Yusuf Bahrani said.
I gave you a direct example from Sunni narrations to exemplify this. The presence of a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, where a portion of the Holy Qur'an was lost due to being eaten by a goat (na'udhubillah), does not mean Sunni Muslims have to accept that the Holy Qur'an is incomplete. Instead, the hadith itself is rejected.You are comparing apples with oranges. The hadeeth of Ibn Majah even if considered reliable is still explained as mentioning those verses whose recitation was abrogated. Hence it's not part of Quran. So we have no problem with it.
Likewise, citing a hadith (which is muwathaq, not sahih or hasan) in Mirat ul Uqool proves nothing against the Shia view of Imam Hassan(as),
especially since Allama Majlisi's primary aim was to collect available hadith rather than to authenticate them.
Why do you continue on in this futile quest to undermine the integrity of the Holy Prophet's(saws) household?I ask you again. Did baqir majlisi or hurr amili or Yusuf bahrani, and all those akhbari scholars who accepted this hadeeth as reliable. did they undermine the integrity of Prophet's(saws) household ?
Which one of the false accounts do you personally believe in? The 70 divorced wives version? The 250 wives version? The 300 divorced wives version? Which one of these logistically impossible and obviously invented slanders sounds right to you?The number of his divorces may not be certain but what is proven from reliable(muwathaq) Shia hadeeth is that he married and divorced many women to such an extent that Ali(ra) rebuked him publicly. This is as per Shia hadeeth and explained by Shia scholar Yusuf bahrani .
I can almost say sunni scholars are in consensus when it comes to rejecting opinion for marriage with the intention of divorce. Those who do are a very tiny minority whose opinion are even rejected by their own peers. Youre trying to portray as if those are like shia mut'ah which there is not a single shia scholar ever objected to plus it is considered as one of the most virtuous act of worship. How desperate are you to compare that with mutah.
Across the sunni world? 😂😂 Lets say for argument sake it is which isnt true, it surely is way more strict than anytime, anywhere, any reason shia mutah which is a license for freesex even a 1 night stand.
Opponents of islam are those who are not muslim as well as those who said they are muslim and yet have always denigrating the best of generation, the companions. You know well, who they are.
Nope, mutah has been made haram. Even when it was still halal, it is not comparable with shia version of mutah.
PS: everyone else, pls stay on topic. Shia are trying to derail so many times
You're evidently unaware of the social realities of the Muslim world and you're commenting about things you don't really know about.
Here's one article alone which contradicts everything you just said about misyar:
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/642991
And I can bring a hundred more articles like this if necessary.
A couple of the brothers here have objected to the comparison of Shia mut'ah marriage with Sunni misyar and 'Urfi marriage.Islam is what Allah revealed and what Prophet(saws) preached.
The items raised, such as no time period being stipulated, and different opinions among Sunni scholars regarding their legality, do not detract from the point being made.
If you criticise mut'ah for perceived sexual licence, when you have misyar and 'urfi being used across the Sunni world for exactly the same reason, you're effectively criticising Islam as a whole.
The number of his divorces may not be certain but what is proven from reliable(muwathaq) Shia hadeeth is that...
Noor-us-Sunnah If you can't respond without rudeness, it's better not to respond at all.
Shouting "ignorant, ignorant, ignorant" over and over says nothing about me and only serves to lower the tone of debate.
Our shortcomings as individuals are known best to Allah(swt) and are not relevant to the points under discussion here.
Your response does not introduce anything new on previous responses and maintains the same erroneous methodology which isn't acceptable in any school of though in Islam.
The consensus of Shia scholars on the slanderous nature of the allegations against Imam Hassan(as) is undeniable, and citing peripheral hadith or decontextualised quotations from individual scholars holds no weigh against this.
No matter how many times you repeat such kinds of arguments, they will not become valid.
Except that muwathaq ahadith don't "prove" anything - that's the whole point. Even sahih graded ahadith don't necessarily prove anything in and of themselves.
Your attempts to cast aspersions on the character of Imam Hassan(as) are not going to be successful; please read the Holy Qur'an surah 49:12 and take some time to reflect on what you're doing to yourself when you forward these accusations.
Islam is what Allah revealed and what Prophet(saws) preached.
For Sunnis Misyar or urfi is from the opinions of some scholars. Whose view can be rejected. Criticizing these would mean criticizing the opinions of those scholars NOT Islam.
For Shias Mutah was preached by their infallible Imams. Hence this is where it becomes problematic. You can't criticize it. And criticizing it would mean criticizing Islam in Shia perspective.
So both are not comparable . And it's unfair to compare them.
I have proven all my points in an academic manner...
You have proven nothing at all, my friend.People blessed with wisdom will judge it.
Perhaps you'd like to "criticize" the former Grand Mufti of Egypt...
https://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/21/71115.html
Your attempts to cast aspersions on the character of Imam Hassan(as) are not going to be successful; please read the Holy Qur'an surah 49:12 and take some time to reflect on what you're doing to yourself when you forward these accusations.
He was wrong in his opinion. We reject his fatwa. This doesn't mean critizing Islam. As simple as that.Shia is so desperate as usual, trying to compare filthy mutah with anything they can find.
GreatChineseFall, when a post contains disrespect for the grandson of the Holy Prophet(saws), I'm no longer interested in anything else in that post other than defending his honor.
As to your first point, stipulating something as a common agreement is important regardless of the option to amend it later. It means the involved parties know exactly where they stand with one another, and it's a declaration of niyyah before Allah(swt).
Any part of the agreement to be amended would be done with mutual consent.
As to mut'ah with kitabi women, my understanding is that permanent marriage with them is possible but highly discouraged.I don't think that's true, prove it. Rather, even mut'ah is forbidden to be done with them if you are in a permanent marriage with a Muslim.
It will usually be very problematic if Muslim children are brought up by Jewish or Christian mothers.So mut'ah is used as a da'wah practice? Why is it forbidden for married men then? Or are only unmarried men suitable for this da'wah? Please, is it forbidden then to have children with them for as long as they are not converted? Or are you going to anticipate a conversion and produce children beforehand anyway?
A temporary marriage serves the purpose of giving them time to learn about Islam and to embrace Islam before contracting permanent nikkah.
As to a man with 4 wives contracting mut'ah, this would be a highly unlikely scenario. It could be that his temporary wives need financial support and so, as is often the case with polygamy, the arrangement is more to their befit than to his.How generous of these guys to help these poor women out and how inconvenient for them that Allah has restricted a man to marry four women only. Can't he just help them out financially without a marriage or can't he guide them to other righteous and financially responsible men? Or is he the only suitable person around? In what world would this ever be the only practical solution to that problem?
He could also be away from home for many months or years and thus be contracting mut'ah to avoid the extremes of celibacy or sin.What a poor guy. Is it then forbidden to have more than one temporary wife or at best four at the same time in the same town or area? Or at the very least disliked or discouraged? It is just to fight off celibacy and sin, right? Or is it unrestricted how many wives you have anywhere at any time?
Of course in all these cases, mut'ah could also be to fulfill sexual needs, which in itself is a legitimate aspect of mut'ah.Finally, there it is, a partial admission after several posts. We are not there yet however, why don't you admit it fully while you are at it? To fulfill sexual needs doesn't just have to be an aspect of mut'ah, it can be the main purpose of it, can't it? So all those examples you just mentioned are just convenient examples. You have no problem with a man who lives with his four wives, and he isn't some place remote, and his wives aren't pregnant or unavailable or something, and his future mut'ah wife isn't financially in very difficult times or a widow, he simply doesn't have an "appetite" for his permanent wives, to just go and contract a mut'ah marriage with some woman or even multiple women for a few hours. You don't have a problem with this, as it's not only permissible, rather it is recommended and he is seen as someone who has done a virtuous act of worship. There lies the main difference with any other type of marriage.
The whole attitude of portraying sexual needs as being inherently embarrassing and shameful is not derived from Islam, but instead reflects the Christian attitude.
There is a walk which takes place from Najaf to Karbala and over 30 million people participate, making it the largest annual gathering in the world.
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,wa alaykumsalam warahmatullah, how can shia reply? You gave them their own ahadith where imam encouraged mutah without any condition. The only best reply understandably just diversion attempt. Let the ummah unite, but not with people who hate and denigrate mother of believers and the companions.
Reading all the comments, and how the traditions I shared were ignored, it is safe to say that this discussion has been stretched too far.
May Allah (swt) unite us all on the true Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
wa alaykumsalam warahmatullah, how can shia reply? You gave them their own ahadith where imam encouraged mutah without any condition. The only best reply understandably just diversion attempt. Let the ummah unite, but not with people who hate and denigrate mother of believers and the companions.
In Ziarat Ashura, la'ana is made on the first, second, third and fourth tyrants, who are anonymous, then on Yazid Ibn Mu'awiyah and the perpetrators of the massacre of Karbala.The strange part is even Muawiyah is censored in this. Isn't Muawiyah supposed to be worst than Yazid? It shows how you guys put yourself in a trap when you do taqiyyah.
The principles of Tawalla and Tabarra aren't relevant here and neither is your allusion to taqiyyah.It is strange because Muawiyah was Imam Ali's enemy, and by saying its about Karbala shows that Imam Hussain (as) had a bigger challenge than Imam Ali (as). Yes I do have a problem with taqiyyah based narrations such as this.
Unless you have a problem with la'ana being made on the perpetrators of the tragedy of Karbala, I don't see any grounds for objection.
neither is your allusion to taqiyyah.Why is the first, second, third and fourth censored? This is not an allusion, its your principal of taqiyyah which your self falsely attributed to the Imams.
And your attempt to shut down the discussion by appealing to emotions shows why Shi'as are always on the losing end of debates. No one will find this attempt at emotional blackmail all that convincing...
Please educate yourself properly before commenting. Sunni is a general title. It encompasses Asharis as well as Salafis. Both Asharis and Salafis can call themselves Sunnis.
Let's take a moment to pause and reflect a little. The logo of this site is "Refuting Shia Allegations Online Everywhere!". The brothers gathered here have described themselves as Sunni, though it's clear that many of them might be better described as Salafi.
Over the last few days it's been roughly 10 vs 1, in attempts to use isolated and secondary evidence to allege that Iman Hassan(as) divorced 70-300 women (astaghfirullah), and to evade the obvious similarities between misyar and mut'ah.What a shameless liar this guy is. Who Talked about the number of women Hasan(ra) divorced? It was you kept bringing the number. Where as the brother who raised this issue, merely mentioned what the RELIABLE SHIA HADEETH states, that Hasan(ra) frequently married and divorced. This is a PRIMARY EVIDENCE not secondary.
al Hasan ibn Ali married frequently and divorced frequently. Not one of those marriages were temporary.
To all the brothers and sisters here (I'm sure there are sisters viewing if not commenting):
I realise that many of you will be surprised by the information I've brought on misyar and 'urfi marriage.
Many of you will not have known that such things existed at all, and others will not have realised their level of acceptance and practice in Sunni Muslim societies.
The state of receiving new information which contrasts with what you believed before is called "cognitive dissonance".
Cognitive dissonance is difficult to process, but I will clarify that I'm not presenting this information as a form of criticism against Sunni Muslims.
The point is that misyar and 'urfi have, to all intents and purposes, identical social functions to mut'ah. This means that to criticise the Shia practice is to criticise the Sunni practice, and thus all Muslims.
Isn't it better that, rather than being quick to condemn, we make efforts to understand why mut'ah, misyar and 'urfi prevail in our societies and why they are approved of by our 'ulama?
Thank you for listening.
I don't think that's true, prove it. Rather, even mut'ah is forbidden to be done with them if you are in a permanent marriage with a Muslim.
So mut'ah is used as a da'wah practice? Why is it forbidden for married men then? Or are only unmarried men suitable for this da'wah? Please, is it forbidden then to have children with them for as long as they are not converted? Or are you going to anticipate a conversion and produce children beforehand anyway?
How generous of these guys to help these poor women out and how inconvenient for them that Allah has restricted a man to marry four women only. Can't he just help them out financially without a marriage or can't he guide them to other righteous and financially responsible men? Or is he the only suitable person around? In what world would this ever be the only practical solution to that problem?
Finally, there it is, a partial admission after several posts. We are not there yet however, why don't you admit it fully while you are at it? To fulfill sexual needs doesn't just have to be an aspect of mut'ah, it can be the main purpose of it, can't it? So all those examples you just mentioned are just convenient examples. You have no problem with a man who lives with his four wives, and he isn't some place remote, and his wives aren't pregnant or unavailable or something, and his future mut'ah wife isn't financially in very difficult times or a widow, he simply doesn't have an "appetite" for his permanent wives, to just go and contract a mut'ah marriage with some woman or even multiple women for a few hours. You don't have a problem with this, as it's not only permissible, rather it is recommended and he is seen as someone who has done a virtuous act of worship. There lies the main difference with any other type of marriage.
People blessed with wisdom will judge it.
He was wrong in his opinion. We reject his fatwa. This doesn't mean critizing Islam. As simple as that.
(https://muslimdunyaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/jummah-Mubarak-Images-49.png)
As-Salaamu alaikum dear brothers and sisters,
This video articulates many of the issues under discussion here and is well worth 50 minutes of your time:
W alaikum asalam wa rahmatullah wa barakatu
Lol the tattooed priest he is funny to watch......not much to learn from a fitna monger but fun yes👍
If he was a Suni then you wouldn't find it funny. Heck you wouldn't even post it. 😂
"It was narrated that Abu Juhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cursed the one who does tattoos and the one who has a tattoo done.”
And that’s your scholar......he is a cursed tattooed soul😂👍
Well since you've mentioned that he's our scholar then he wouldn't believe in what you've quoted then, would he to begin with?😀 Honestly you should be in kindergarten. Your behaviour is so childish.
What are you waffling on about now?
He is your scholar and a poster has posted his vids to watch......I say he is not worth watching and him having tattoos is only 1 reason for no watching him. I provided a Hadith from us that goes against his tattoos....basically if he can’t follow a sunnah then he is of NO VALUE....simple.
I didn’t post the vid up to watch.....Mr simpleton.
I think you have comprehension problems as many other brothers have also mentioned.
GreatChineseFall Here's a link to the rulings of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali al Sistani on the subject:
https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2348/
No 2406 is relevant to your inquiry. Some other scholars rule that permanent marriage with Kitabi women is halal but makruh.
Yes, naturally for Muslims with good akhlaq to spend time around non-Muslims can be a form of da'wah. Women converting to Islam to marry Muslim men, or due to being impressed by Muslims' adab, is a common occurrence.
In the case of children, to my understanding it will be similar to permanent marriage with Kitabi women whereby, assuming they don't revert, the situation is allowed but undesirable.
Of course Allah(swt) has not made this Deen inconvenient for us. The above situation is one which I opined would be unlikely, though an eminent case would be that of a man away from home for extended periods of time.If it is unlikely, then all the more reason not to allow more than four women, permanently and temporary in order to avoid abuse. Additionally, as per Shi'i scholars, it is not allowed to stay away for that long from one's wife and maybe he should divorce his wives so that his wives can move on instead of being neither married nor unmarried.
For a man who isn't away from home, he may prefer to contract mut'ah than to provide support freely, or there may be other contingencies.What a man prefers is irrelevant as a man may also prefer to have 5 permanent wives.
An "admission" of something we're already aware of?
We already know that mut'ah is contracted for sexual relations to take place without sin; but it also has other social functions.
We already know that mut'ah is contracted for sexual relations to take place without sin; but it CAN also have other social functions, IT DOESN'T HAVE TOThis is what you don't seem to understand or are unwilling to understand. All those examples are convenient from an apologetic point of view. You may try to convert a Kitabi woman, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You may try to get to know each other, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
This reality is in stark contrast to the ideas of those who try to paint mut'ah as some sort of licence for promiscuity.It is actually exactly that, it doesn't matter how it is used by some people. As I said before, women may earn a living by doing this practice, that doesn't change the intended purpose of mut'ah to be a licence to earn a living. People can convert christian women with this practice, that doesn't mean that the purpose of mut'ah is to provide for a licence or a meanse to convert people. The main purpose of mut'ah is to provide a means to satisfy one's sexual needs and it's perfectly fine if it is SOLELY done for that. That is the whole idea behind mut'ah being made halal according to Shi'i scholars. So how is it not a licence to promiscuity?
Promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.With casual sex being defined as:
Casual sex is sexual activity that takes places outside a romantic relationship and implies an absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners.In addition you said:
The whole attitude of portraying sexual needs as being inherently embarrassing and shameful is not derived from Islam, but instead reflects the Christian attitude.So let's see if you are embarrased. Again, is there something wrong with promiscuity? Do you have an issue with casual sex? Is this something to be ashamed of? Is it ok to satisfy one's sexual needs (in a halal way of course) without any commitment towards the other partner other than the duration of the act?
Regarding the "recommended" status of mut'ah, to my understating that's true but it depends on the circumstances. Marriage on the whole is recommended in Islam, and one of the many reasons for this is to satisfy physical needs in a halal manner. This is true for the Islamic view of marriage in general, so I don't concur with the "difference" you note in your last sentence.
Something I must remind you of is that according to all Muslims, the Holy Prophet(saws) made mut'ah halal and instructed the sahaaba to do it.
When you're questioning me from a skeptical angle, you're questioning something Allah(swt) and His Messenger(saws) made halal, according to your own beliefs.
I'm sure there are people who are blessed with wisdom and I'm sure you are too. I've been asking a question for some time now and I haven't got an answer till yet.
According to the Ahle Sunah the Prophet (s) prohibited Mutah, why? What was the reason and purpose? Surely there must have been a reason and purpose for the Prophet (s) to ban Mutah. What was it?
Is this what your belief and faith is based on,
"yes the Prophet (s) prohibited Mutah but we don't know why.'
I realise that many of you will be surprised by the information I've brought on misyar and 'urfi marriage.
Many of you will not have known that such things existed at all, and others will not have realised their level of acceptance and practice in Sunni Muslim societies.
Iceman comes across as one of them embarassing desi’s.
Why is there not even one single shia who comes on this site who addresses any subject in a clear academic manner?
I can see why twelver sciences are so weak, as their forefathers were an embarassment in hadith sciences, fiqh, seerah etc.
Stop jumping up and down and try to post and say something useful and worth while. There's a clear difference between your and our Sunah. We follow the Prophet's (S) Sunah.
And you follow the Sunah of either Imam Abu Hanifa or one of the other Imams. You're suni Hanfi or something else. You abandoned the Prophet's (s) sunah along time ago.
And so did certain rulers after his (s) death onwards started to bring about a change one way or the other based on their decisions.
This doesn't prove anything. It says "A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a non-Muslim woman who are not Ahlul Kitab. However, there is no harm in contracting temporary marriage with Jewish and Christians women, but the obligatory precaution is that a Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage." So as per obligatory precaution it is not allowed, that is different from makruh. Who are those other scholars?
Regardless of it being makruh, why is it different from mut'ah if conversion is sought? A Kitabi woman can convert due to a permanent marriage just as well as due to a temporary one. As far as the permanent one is concerned, you can always divorce after the same period of a potential temporary one if things don't work out
If it is unlikely, then all the more reason not to allow more than four women, permanently and temporary in order to avoid abuse. Additionally, as per Shi'i scholars, it is not allowed to stay away for that long from one's wife and maybe he should divorce his wives so that his wives can move on instead of being neither married nor unmarried.
Marrying siblings was made halal for the children of Adam(as), alcohol was halal during the time of our Prophet(saws), that doesn't take away one's right to critize the practice once it is forbidden
Irrelevant, Muslim women may earn a living from this practice, that doesn't mean that that is the intended purpose of mut'ah. What the consequences are or what it is used for, is irrelevant as to the reason why mut'ah is allowed. Mut'ah isn't allowed so that people have an extra da'wah tool to use. And why is it forbidden for married men? Are unmarried men the only ones who are suitable to show good akhlaq and convert them?
This is what you don't seem to understand or are unwilling to understand. All those examples are convenient from an apologetic point of view. You may try to convert a Kitabi woman, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You may try to get to know each other, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
It is perfectly fine to contract a mut'ah marriage for the sole purpose of satisfying one's sexual needs and this is what you are unwilling to defend. As I said, a greater sign of insecurity is if people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for what they believe.
Indeed I did not know that misyar existed until my interaction with (online) Shias. That, in of itself, substantiates the point most of us have been trying to make and by acknowledging it, I think you've shot yourself in the foot...
Yes a big difference....you follow a Jew and his sunnah of divine authority.
Only giving you the truth😊
You have hardly no sayings going directly back to prophet saw......so how did you get your sunnah? Some doing taqiyya?? Great👍
Following a student of ahlubaith ra is better than following a deviant who was punished by ahlubaith ra.(Ibn Saba who thought of the divine authority dream)👍😂😂
And now ......that divine authority dream has turned into a nightmare 12th man down the line........coz the 12th divine authority is scared and in hiding and is waiting for just 313 true divinity followers. At the moment out of possibly 150 mill Shiites......he still cannot get a meagre 313!!
That’s 12’r divinity Shiism 🙄🙄🙄
That’s sense and logic of a Shiite for you.😁
Nikah Misyar
This marriage is a normal Islamic marriage with the exception that the husband and wife give up several rights by their own free will, such as living together, equal division of nights between wives in cases of polygyny, the wife's rights to housing, and maintenance money ("nafaqa"), and the husband's right of homekeeping, and access etc. and it is practiced by sunnis.
These rights are not considered obligatory for the marriage contract to happen according to Islam.
Also, Misyar is not temporary. If the marriage is fixed (temporary) then this is haram according to Sunnis.
Last point, Majority of scholars disallowed Misyar marriage, such as Yusuf al-Qaradwai and al-albani and other.
You're not giving me the truth but the nonsense and rubbish you've been fed with about Shias from day one. Muhammad (s) is the one we follow and he wasn't a Jew. Certain companions disregard him (s) and what he had to offer around and during his (s) final days. They had other intentions and for that the Muslim Ummah is paying the price.
We got our Sunan from the following chain; Al Askari from Al Naqi from Al Taqi from Al Raza from Al Kazim from Al Sadiq from Al Baqir from Al Sajjad from Al Hussain and Al Hassan from Al murtaza from Muhammad (s) 😊
We know who and what we are. WHAT ABOUT YOU?
Ibne Saba is a fictional story created by Anti Shias and occultation isn't hiding. You already Jesus and Khizar awaiting 😊 Use your aql. 😊
In English we have the well known saying: "Don't shoot the messenger".
I will give you an "A" in English but I am afraid you failed your own argument with your inability to (yet again) comment on (the possibility of) mutah being "mustahab" versus misyar being "makrooh".
Bump......whalop. I new you couldn't respond any better.
You are an amazing brother however, masha'Allah. I like you. You can read what is in my heart and mind over the internet. Next time put spell-check to use. Your impeccable responses deserve unblemished presentation.
Plenty has been said and put forward. You disregard everything along with certain others and only wish to comment on what suits you and what your comfortable with and what you can get away with. Marvellous!
What can I say.
1) What is the ruling for Mut'ah in the Ja'fari madhhab? *answered* It is mustahabb according to Ayatollah Khamini.
2) If it is at least mustahabb, why is it so taboo in Ja'fari communities?
3) Is there any fatwas or ahadeeth which mention that Mut'ah is for certain circumstances? As you know, the fatwas we read and the ahadeeth that are quoted always seem to imply that the virtue of the act is unrestricted.
4) Do you believe that Bukhari, Muslim and other early hadeeth scholars mentioned the narrations that "Omar banned Mut'ah" because they believe Omar DID ban Mut'ah, or did they have other intentions?
5) Why did you think you were making a point when you said that "Mut'ah was allowed during the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's time"? This one is real confusing to me because ALL things that were haraam were allowed until the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم banned it.
6) New issue: I was reading this thread on shiachat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235054737-can-i-have-mutah-with-different-men/ Why do you suppose everyone was discouraging her from doing Mut'ah with multiple men and some even accused her of being Salafi/Wahhabi? How does this reconcile with the ahadeeth we read which say that the more you do Mut'ah, the more reward you will get (as is mentioned in the latest post by Muslim720)?
GreatChineseFall, Obligatory precaution does not necessarily mean "not allowed":
https://www.al-islam.org/the-basics-of-islamic-jurisprudence-hassan-al-ridai/jurisprudence-jargon
Here are the links you requested to scholars who allow (recommended precaution as opposed to obligatory precaution) permanent marriage with Kitabi women:
http://www.english.shirazi.ir/topics/marriage
https://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-abul-qasim-al-khui/marriage
In the second link, please go to number 2406.
As for the similarities you suggest between temporary and permanent marriage where conversion is sought, I believe you've partially answered your own question with reference to divorce. Divorce is a highly makruh act which temporary marriage avoids.
We also have to consider the differences in niyyah and in practical application: a temporary marriage, with the expressed hope that conversion will take place, is a lot different from a permanent marriage in which the wife has been offered a lifelong commitment while still being Jewish or Christian.
On the contrary, surely it's better to have halal options for diverse contingencies and exigencies.
One of the things that separates Islam from other religions is that it is universal and provides for us in whatever state or situation we may find ourselves in.
If you're aware of a consensus among Shi'i scholars of a particular time limit for absence from one's wives, please elucidate if you feel it pertains to the discussion.
The alcohol example is inadmissable because the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to drink alcohol - a dissolute practice which was forbidden in stages; whereas he positively instructed the Muslims to do mut'ah.Fair enough, however the connotation that you are trying to push by stating that the Prophet(saws) "positively instructed" the companions to do mut'ah. He(saws) permitted it under very specific circumstances and for a short period of time. That would be the same as saying that the Prophet(saws) positively instructed the wife of Abu Juhayfa to breastfeed Salim, an adult companion. You might say that the period of allowing mut'ah was longer or that more companions did it, however that is of no relevance.
While your example of Nabi Adam(as) is more apposite, that was a different time, with a different state of humanity and a different Shari'ah.
Mut'ah however was made halal under our current Prophet(saws) whose Shari'ah is valid for our current humanity until the Yawm-ul-Qiyamah.
Taking this into account, then even if you believe mut'ah has been abolished, surely it's inappropriate to refer to it disparagingly.
Here you are defining mut'ah on your own terms. You have definitively stated that "mut'ah isn't allowed so that people have an extra da'wah tool to use.".
What authority do you have to restrict the applications of mut'ah to those you yourself perceive?
Please refer to 2430 in the above link.
You've made yourself clear and I understand you very well as I did in the previous post.
According to your own narrations, the Holy Prophet(saws) instructed the sahaaba to do mut'ah for "the sole purpose of satisfying one's sexual needs", so why would you expect me to feel "embarrassed" about this?
Q: Is it permissible for a frigid wife or husband to watch pornographic scenes?
A: I don’t think it has been scientifically proven that watching pornographic films is a reliable treatment for frigidity; on the contrary, it often has negative results. Also, morally speaking, this weakens moral immunity, and attaches people, even couples, to a mood of dissolution which makes man feel alienated from his wife when she fails to imitate the woman who plays the sexual role in the film, and makes the wife alienated from her husband if he fails to imitate the male figure.
Similarly, the same thing happens upon fornication. When a man fornicates with an experienced [Edited Out], he feels disappointed when his wife fails to offer moves similar to the ones offered by the [Edited Out], who has provided him with all elements of excitement. Perhaps this is one among the reasons that have led some jurists to forbid temporary marriage (mutaa) to common prostitutes. So, we believe that the x-rated movies and pornography have a negative impact on the spiritual, moral and family sides of a person; thus, I forbid it for spouses.
But, if a husband or a wife, or both suffer frigidity in the absence of any means of treatment, whether natural- through mutual excitation -or through medication, and if the only treatment is watching pornographic scenes, then this will be permissible, only because this is the only means, keeping in mind that this should be done apart from any excess, just like taking the proper dosage of the medicine prescribed, provided that this passive situation may threaten their matrimonial life.
Just as it can be contracted for sexual needs to be met in a halal way, it can also be contracted for other reasons with the stipulation that no sexual contact will take place.Irrelevant
Your insistence on the primacy of the sexual aspect is of no ultimate consequence, since Allah(saws) has blessed us with a Deen which addresses all our needs, both spiritual and temporal.
The word "mut'ah" is derived from an Arabic root which connotes pleasure, while the word "nikah" is derived from an Arabic root which connotes sexual intercourse. Since one of the primary rights of a man in nikah, according to all Muslims, is sexual intercourse, can we therefore dismiss as peripheral all the other aspects of nikah and say that marriage itself is essentially just a sexual arrangement?
My reference to promiscuity was on account of the negative connotations the word has in the English language.I have not much to comment here. Long story short, you have no problem with casual sex in general and no issue with being promiscuous?
It is within these cultural parentheses that I have also brought attention to the differences between Islamic teachings and Christian attitudes; and this in turn is demonstrative of the wider reality that many people are embarrassed about sexuality in general and often close off legal avenues. For example Allah(swt) has stated in the Holy Qur'an:
ثُمَّ قَفَّينا عَلىٰ آثارِهِم بِرُسُلِنا وَقَفَّينا بِعيسَى ابنِ مَريَمَ وَآتَيناهُ الإِنجيلَ وَجَعَلنا في قُلوبِ الَّذينَ اتَّبَعوهُ رَأفَةً وَرَحمَةً وَرَهبانِيَّةً ابتَدَعوها ما كَتَبناها عَلَيهِم إِلَّا ابتِغاءَ رِضوانِ اللَّهِ فَما رَعَوها حَقَّ رِعايَتِها ۖ فَآتَينَا الَّذينَ آمَنوا مِنهُم أَجرَهُم ۖ وَكَثيرٌ مِنهُم فاسِقونَ
Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented. We ordained it not for them. Only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers. (Holy Qur'an 57:27)
From Christan history we know that monasticism involved them enforcing celibacy upon themselves and closing off what Allah(swt) had permitted for them.
There's no apparent reason why the "embarrassment" you speak of with regard to mut'ah is different from the common human embarrassment pertaining to carnal desires in general, the same embarrassment which caused monks and priests to impose celibacy on themselves or which causes modern Westerners to criticise the marriages of the Holy Prophet(saws).Embarrassement or rather shame is intrinsically connnected to the value, stature and honour of a person and one feels shame if their honour is attacked or their stature and value is perceived to be lowered. Basically, embarrassement or shame can be of three types. One can feel embarrassed because they feel inadequate or even worthless due to their situation in general, for example a person may have a deformity or consider himself unattractive. One can feel shame because they have been wronged and this wronging is humiliating and an attack on their honour, like a person who has been raped. These two types are not problematic because the person himself is not actively participating in any wrongdoing. The last one is feeling embarrassement because you are doing something wrong that attacks the honour of someone, possibly yourself, like doing zina.
Since there's no Islamic sanction for these attitudes, they're not something we as Muslims need consider ourselves fettered by.
You’re obviously not here take part in any serious discussion.
Plenty has been said, but none of it actually addressed the topic at hand.
You can say something related to the topic without engaging in a whole bunch of "whatabouttery."
You can answer any of these questions:
Save me at least if not yourself from the nonsense. Please don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of this, that and the other.
whataboutism: A propaganda technique where criticisms are deflected by raising corresponding criticisms of the opposite side.
I can answer but satisfying you completely is not in my hands.
But still, fire away one by one if you fancy another shot at it.
I didn't put words in your mouth. I accused you of engaging in "whataboutery" which it turned out is actually the wrong term; I should've accused you of "whataboutism" :o you learn something new everyday
For example, in this thread, we questioned the taboo nature of Mut'ah in the 12er world despite it being considered mustahabb unconditionally and doing it four times supposedly raises the person to the status of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. You and Ibrahim began to respond by raising Misyar and Urfi marriages; i.e. "well what about Misyar marriage?!" The problem with that is, you are actually admitting that Mut'ah is something taboo to you because you are equating it with something that ranges from makrooh to haram with us.
Answering is something like what I did above. You had an objection, and I addressed it. At that point, you can either be satisfied by my answer or not. You on the other hand hardly ever address anything, and whenever anything you say is refuted, instead of actually addressing it, you just say "its not my fault you can't understand and is fed anti-Shia propaganda." I am fed it by who? You as a Shi'a is my source of Shi'asm, not Salafis, not Ash'aris, rather I learn Shi'asm from Shi'is, just like I learn any school from that school itself. Once you come to accept this, you will realize why what you say hasn't been very convincing. Once you come to accept that I am not fundamentally evil, that I am not purposefully misunderstanding you, you and I will be to have a real conversation.
Let's start with question #3: Are there any fatwas or ahadeeth which mention that Mut'ah is for certain circumstances? As you know, the fatwas we read and the ahadeeth that are quoted always seem to imply that the virtue of the act is unrestricted.
If you can also address the narrations which mention that doing it four times is equal to being on the level of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as I think it's related to the question at hand. Please answer with your opinon on it, I already know not "to believe everything I read in books" and "not everything any Shi'i Alim said is the belief of Shi'as", what I want is YOUR opinion on these narrations, and how you came to that opinion i.e. did you reject them because of the sanad, because you thought they were Shaadh etc.
بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك I think we will finally be able to move along in this discussion...
SO......GO ON THEN SHIITE WARRIOR......ICEPOOP.
How did Islam PROSPER coz of Shiites?
You made the claim and now you can’t back it up? That’s shiitism in a nutshell!!😂😂👍👍
Just like you made a false claim Iran doesn’t CO OPERATE with enemies😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Come on icepoop show us your great Shiite bred intellect......if you have any😂😂😂😂
So Khaled, what are you going to say about the smiley faces here? And look at the amount. And to the moderators, the insult from this post alone, never mind the others, any comments? I don't expect any action to be taken😊
So Khaled, what are you going to say about the smiley faces here? And look at the amount. And to the moderators, the insult from this post alone, never mind the others, any comments? I don't expect any action to be taken😊
You accused me of.....
That's ok. We Shias have been accused of a lot of rubbish from day one and none of it has come out to be true.
You questioned the taboo nature of mutah with in the Shia community and I answered in great detail that mutah is not taboo in our community nor is it commonly practiced.
It isn't taboo it's just the low ikhlaq and ill nature of how certain people put the question of mutah forward to us.
When questioned I still responded that it's not something you do or get your women to do or add your women how many times they've done it.
But it depends on the need and urge again depending on circumstances, situations and conditions.
The Prophet (s) made it permissible and that's exactly what we stand by.
The definition and meaning of 'FATWA'.
A fatwā is an Islamic legal pronouncement, issued by an expert in religious law (mufti), pertaining to a specific issue, usually at the request of an individual or judge to resolve an issue where Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), is unclear.
Now I was asked for a Fatwa of Shia Scholar/s in clear wording that Mutah is permissible/allowed only due to exceptional circumstances.
My further argument is why do we need or what is the need for a Fatwa when the ruling is absolutely clear on Mutah that the Prophet (s) made it permissible and reality and facts tell us that Mutah was exercised due to exceptional circumstances.
Lastly, if a guy slept with my sister doing Mutah without me or my dad knowing, knock him out. Just saying. If I had a daughter, I'd knock him out too. I don't care who bad the guy cant control his genitals. If he is struggling to the point of sin then he is weak and I wouldn't even want him to marry my sister or daughter. Masturbation is not fixed with marriage, it normally goes hand in hand with porn and is and addiction and a spiritual disease that needs to be gotten rid off before you marry someones sister/daughter.
Why mutah? Why not just get married permanently? Also, do you apply this theory equally to men and to women? Would communities accept the idea that every woman should have had at least one mutah before she settles down to permanently marry?
Yes, it is shameful that Shia communities expect little angels Jafar and Bilal (generic Shia names) to stay away from sin until the age of 28... 15 years without any haram release requires a lot of self control.
I've given a lot of thought to this topic. Mut`a is one of those issues that is not talked about in our communities, and so it is abused, because people do not know the rules. I've heard of young men having mut`a with prostitutes (which is not endorsed by most of our scholars), men having mut`a with women who are under the influence of alcohol (the seegha is invalid if they are drunk), men having mut`a with Muslim girls without their father's permission because "they are not virgins" (according to S. Sistani, you need their father's permission unless they have consummated a halal marriage before), men with Muslim wives who are doing mut`a the Kitabiyyat (Sistani says these men need their wives' permission before doing mut`a with a Kitabiyya), women "switching" maraji` to be considered a rashida by another marja` (switching marja` is a rigorous process that you can't just do on a whim), women not fulfilling the correct `idda length, men "picking up" mut`a wives in haram environments, and men forcing their women to have an abortion after they become pregnant.
1. Mutah is a huge taboo, even though it is halal and a practical solution for many youths. It is a reason to be shunned, for our sisters (and to a much lesser extent for our brothers) whether it is done within guidelines of the sharia or not. In most communities, this is irrelevant. In most communities, it is much, much easier to find a partner for zina(haram) than for mutah(halal).
As has been said before, divorce is only disliked without a valid reason. You can not have being in a marriage with a Christian disliked(or even forbidden) and ending a marriage with a Christian also being disliked. That would mean that no matter what you do, you would be doing something that is disliked. This is not possible.
So what about the married men? What if they are away in a Christian country or land with only Christian women. What is the solution to their situation and why can't they contract mut'ah and try to convert them? Why is it only allowed for unmarried men?
Secondly, something I forgot to mention before is the difference in what was allowed and what is currently considered to be allowed. Mut'ah was as I said was permitted under very specific circumstances where the choice was between castration and mut'ah. The same scenario applies to taqiyya for example. Sunni's believe that the circumstances under which it is allowed are very strict and find the concept of taqiyya in Shi'i thought extremely problematic and a license to deceive and lie.
No, because as you correctly stated it is "ONE OF THE primary rights" as there are many rights and also many obligations. We can't dissmiss them as peripheral because they are NOT peripheral, it's that simple. In the case of mut'ah, they are peripheral or totally absent and left to the discretion and mutual consent of the two engaged in it. Suffice to say that if one were to marry without stating any conditions, many rights and obligations would solidify due to absence of stating any conditions. Mut'ah on the other hand, if one were to contract that without stating any specific conditions it would result in hardly anything else besides conjugal rights and financial compensation.
Embarrassement or rather shame is intrinsically connnected to the value, stature and honour of a person and one feels shame if their honour is attacked or their stature and value is perceived to be lowered. Basically, embarrassement or shame can be of three types...
I will give you an "A" in English but I am afraid you failed your own argument with your inability to (yet again) comment on (the possibility of) mutah being "mustahab" versus misyar being "makrooh".
I don't necessarily agree with the dichotomy you've made, nor do I find a way to respond other than with the views I've already expressed on this thread.
What I will say is that I admire the honesty of your previous response and that I understand why Sunni misyar exists even if you yourself don't approve of it.
Brother Khaled you are still trying to put up a stance based on argument and confrontation but in a friendliest manner.
People on this site don't have a good or positive word to say about the Shias.
You have been brought up by being told that if you attend the Nimaz e Janaza of a Shia your Nikah will become invalid and lots more.
Who are you trying to kid here by telling that you've engaged with Shias all your life. A community that you've been told to stay and keep away from by being told porkies about them, you claim you know so much about them.
No one is angry or aggressive when asked questions. It's the nature, intention and how the question is asked and put forward. It's just to fuel the Shias and get them all emotional. As you've seen that these techniques and tactics haven't worked on fueling me.
I am a step ahead and ready and well prepared. I know their game and their intentions. But we shall continue this discussion. It will get more interesting.
SO......GO ON THEN SHIITE WARRIOR......ICEPOOP.
Brother, why would you say such a thing? It is not befitting of you. Even if you said it to get a reaction from him or to get a response to the question which has been dodged many times, use of such language is not the way to go about it. Not to mention, the brother feeds off such behavior. It gives him a reason to play the victim and possibly go out like a martyr.
Brother Iceman, I apologize on behalf of our brother Mythbuster1.
Brother, why would you say such a thing? It is not befitting of you. Even if you said it to get a reaction from him or to get a response to the question which has been dodged many times, use of such language is not the way to go about it. Not to mention, the brother feeds off such behavior. It gives him a reason to play the victim and possibly go out like a martyr.
Brother Iceman, I apologize on behalf of our brother Mythbuster1.
Ok, lets all calm down. Would you mind putting the question forward that you believe I have dodged or may be it wasn't to your satisfaction.
I did apologise, I went a bit far and am genuinely sorry, i know brothers here are discussing in a good manner, I didn’t even know what it meant and just posted without thinking just coz I thought the name was funny, my mistake, hence I shall refrain from posting nonsense or don’t post at all.
Sorry brother iceman and sorry to the brothers if I derailed the thread.
Brother, this discussion started with a question. Fourteen pages later, you still don't know which question. Let it be!
I might have missed your apology so I apologize for that. JazakAllah khair and barakAllahu feek!
I have told you that I have answered everything in great depth and in detail. Now if you want to play around rather than pointing out what answer you're not happy with then what can I say.
I have told you that I have answered everything in great depth and in detail. Now if you want to play around rather than pointing out what answer you're not happy with then what can I say.
Since you insist, I will leave this here. For the record, I copied this hadith from ShiaChat; it was shared by a Shia member (as a sahih hadith which proves that mutah is legal).
Abdullah bin Umar al-Laithi approached imam Baqir (as) and asked him, "What do you say regarding mut'ah?". The imam replied, "Allah made it halal in His book, and on the tongue of His Prophet (pbuh), and it is halal till the Day of Judgement". The man replied, "Someone like you says this! While Umar made it haram and banned it?". The imam replied, "Even so". The man said, "Fear Allah in making halal something made haram by Umar". The imam said, "You are on your companion's (Umar's) saying, and I follow what the Prophet (pbuh) said.......". The man accepted what the imam said. Abdullah ibn Umair asked the imam if he was ok if his women daughters, sisters and cousins did mut'ah. The imam became agitated when the man mentioned his women.
Maybe these are two narrations lumped as one, partly due to bad punctuation on the part of the user, but we see that the Imam (ra) openly declares that he follows the Prophet (saw), not Umar (ra); so much for Imams (ra) hiding their beliefs out of fear. In the very next breath, the Imam (ra) is agitated by the mention of his own women performing this recommended "sunnah". Why?
This is what's called a "false dilemma" - it means you've presented only two possibilities when there are in fact more. I will focus on this tendency in this post since I believe it's key to resolving any remaining misunderstanding.This is not addressing the issue. If I point out that what you believe is problematic, then there is no need to mention cases where it wouldn't be problematic. It is enough if there are cases (which aren't too unusal or fantastical) where it is problematic. A very simple example is if a man in a Christian marriage converts and fears his wife's influence on the children, he can either continue the marriage or divorce her. It can't be that both these options are disliked. He could kill her or himself or find other creative things to do, however when presenting a dilemma I thought it would be clear that only options are discussed from a practical and relevant point of view.
A third option to the above is of course to make temporary marriage with Kitabi women. A fourth option is simply to seek marriage with Muslim women, so the possibility of a disliked situation doesn't arise in the first place.
Furthermore, since Sunni Muslims also hold marriage with Kitabi women to be problematic, makruh or even haraam, this issue ultimately rests no more with me than with you.
To my understanding this relates to the rights of his Muslim wives concerning him marrying a non-Muslim.Proof? How? And why? Because here it starts to get even more confusing for me. When I told you that a permanent marriage with a Christian is forbidden, you told me that it's possible but highly discouraged. However, a temporary marriage is totally fine if you are unmarried. I told you why, you told me, this gives the woman time to learn about Islam and eventually embrace Islam. So far so good.
Sunni ahadith present mut'ah in much more general circumstances than you imply. The practical application of mut'ah may encompass the more pressing circumstances, though that's not what it's limited to in your own narrations.
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying:
Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
I had hoped and expected that you would respond with the above. Yes, I agree that nikah and mut'ah are dissimilar in their social functions, but it's the degree of their disparity which is in question, and your screwdriver analogy indicates that you have a tendency to overstate this.
The use of mut'ah as a non-sexual means for couples to approach nikah and assess compatibility cannot be dismissed. Likewise the use of mut'ah as a source of companionship and financial support for those women who, due to age or situation, find they are unable to attract suitors for permanent marriage.
Your last sentence about mut'ah is actually what many critics say about the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. The black-and-white language you're employing on this subject needs to give way to a more nuanced outlook, I would suggest.
This brings us to what I see as the crux of the discussion. Again I will draw reference to restrictive ways of thinking which result in false dilemmas, or a false trilemma in this case.
Surely embarrassment is something which underlies myriad situations, principles and emotions, in such a way as to defy numeration.
To your three types above one can easily add embarrassment elided with empathy when observing others' inabilities, embarrassment elided with humility when we receive an honour which we feel we don't deserve, or embarrassment as a substrate of modesty in the graceful demeanor of the mu'mineen with good akhlaq.
And I'm sure we can add many more.
The kind of embarrassment under discusuon here, that which I have rejected, is the kind of embarrassment some attach to carnal desires whereby sexuality per se, in and of itself, is considered inherently shameful. It is this attitude which is then used to condemn mut'ah, despite the attitude itself being at fault.
"Promiscuity" describes the indiscriminate sexual behaviour which takes into account no religious rights or boundaries and thus is not at all comparable to mut'ah which is based upon both.
So to clarify, I'm not defending or condoning promiscuity, but rather attempting to point out that there's no need to regard mut'ah in the same way one would regard promiscuity.
If we regard "promiscuity" as the mere access of a man to numerous partners, then would put us in the territory of those who criticise the marriages of the Holy Prophet(saws), na'udhubillah.
The chief difference, to my understanding, is whether we engage with those partners according to our own whims, or according to the rules and regulations Allah(swt) has established.
In the webcam question (which is out of my remit to address in the absence of a specific fatwa from a scholar, and which could equally be asked of Sunnis) you appear to want me to respond in a way which demonstrates a lack of moral boundaries. But what makes you so concerned with where my own boundaries lie? After all, I'm a fallible person who can be wrong about anything. Is it not better that we try to find where the Islamic boundaries lie, and then draw our own boundaries in the same place? What makes you sure that your own attitude is in sync with that taught by Islam?
As you will be aware, the general rule in Islam is permissibility in the absence of prohibition, not the other way round.
The main, and perhaps the only issue here as I see it is whether you or anyone else can guarantee that they're looking at this from a purely Islamic perspective, or if it's possible that upbringing, societal influence and personal thoughts are responsible in varying degrees.
I put it to you that from the Islamic perspective, even if you believe mut'ah has been banned, there's no reason to object to it in principle.That's simply false and I explained why
Honestly I just don't know what to say to you
You can address the hadeeth he quoted, or any number of posts I have directed to you. But you and I both know that you've basically given up at this point.
Honestly I just don't know what to say to you because you are certainly not there to get to know, learn or be satisfied.
Muslim720, Out of respect to your earlier request, I looked back to find the ahadith you posted (some time before I joined this thread) only to find them unreferenced.
Is it fair to ask me to comment on unreferenced sources?
Suffice to say, there is a consensus among Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike, that the Holy Prophet(saws) is the best of creation, so there's no question of any Muslim reaching his level.
I'm happy to hear of your frequent visits to your local "Shia mosques" (mosques are for Allah(swt), Sunni Muslims can and do pray there too, as I'm sure you're aware).
Why do you do this?
According to Islam a man or woman have the right to approach and get in touch with each other on the basis of looking and finding a partner for themselves and have the right to talk to each other to see if they're compatible. Despite this certain families do not want any man to approach/get in touch with their females on even such a basis and reason. Or will not allow their women to speak with any male on such grounds.
Decent and men with Ikhlaq and good manners don't even bring girls and women in to conversations by such intentions and means.
Thank you for declaring every single Shia supporting mutah ranging from Imams (ra) - although they are innocent of what you ascribe to them - to scholars to laymen (even your own self) indecent and without akhlaq because there is no mutah without girls and women. Without women, there is no mutah so they have to be brought into the conversation.
The topic was exactly this. Why would Shias support and encourage mutah but get offended when one approaches them for mutah with their womenfolk? You have unwillingly exposed the Shia hypocrisy by supporting mutah while declaring such men to be indecent and without akhlaq.
This discussion, I believe, is over because this time, you have given a satisfying response.
Thank you for declaring every single Shia supporting mutah ranging from Imams (ra) - although they are innocent of what you ascribe to them - to scholars to laymen (even your own self) indecent and without akhlaq because there is no mutah without girls and women. Without women, there is no mutah so they have to be brought into the conversation.
The topic was exactly this. Why would Shias support and encourage mutah but get offended when one approaches them for mutah with their womenfolk? You have unwillingly exposed the Shia hypocrisy by supporting mutah while declaring such men to be indecent and without akhlaq.
This discussion, I believe, is over because this time, you have given a satisfying response.
What a naive response but I will reply with intellect.
You ask a Shia Scholar about Mutah and after his response you directly ask him if he has any close women available so you can do Mutah with them and he gets offended by that and you have a problem with this? Is this what you're trying to say?
Forget about Mutah I'm going to put this forward just to make a point for you to understand what you're saying, you believe in Nikah (Marriage), now if a suni brother asks you that if you've got any close woman like a sister, daughter or niece available for marriage then he would like to take a crack at her how would you feel?
If someone approached you directly and asked if you had any close women available and ready for marriage (nikah) then he's interested, if this was put directly straight into your face then what would your response and feeling be? What would you say to him?
You disregard all other of my points and only comment on what suits you.😀 What are you hesitant of?
Forget about Shia Imams or Scholars, I will ask myself on your behalf to put an end to your mischief and bring you to a dead end.
Intellect or deceit (by trying to straitjacket me with your own scenario)? After 15 pages, you have finally come to the discussion table, albeit on your own terms as we shall see.
No, this is what you hope I said. In other words, you want to strawman my argument and morph it into one of your liking, one you can deal with.
I have consolidated both your replies in one because they, essentially, are asking the same thing. First of all, no, I do not have to go to a Shia scholar and ask him if he has a girl in his family for me to take as my wife in a temporary marriage. You came up with that very convenient scenario to allow yourself some leverage. And this is straitjacketing. Instead, lets says, there is a Shia man - we will call him Feroz - who already knows about mutah and all its rules (he does not need to go to a scholar to learn about mutah.....he already knows). Now why would your scholars, especially the ones who vehemently support and encourage mutah upon the basis that it is sunnah, get offended if Feroz asks for mutah with someone in their families? WHY?
Secondly, you asked for my response if a Sunni brother were to ask me if I have someone in my family he could marry (or perform nikah) with. What is wrong with that? Maybe you were not taught this as a child but the difference between a decent man and a mischievous one is that the former (for the most part) approaches the father, brother or a close relative of the girl with pure intentions; the latter goes directly after the girl. That is the distinguishing criterion between men and boys. So if a decent brother, who is upon the deen, were to ask me if I know any girl, of course I would look around to see if there is anyone (in my immediate family or among my relatives) who would be willing to marry him. Isn't this the way marriages are arranged? Sometimes through people who know both families (in other words, they are common to both families and serve as a link) or two families that associate with each other see that two of their children are a good match, so they initiate a familial alliance.
Let me show you mischief; see how he is selling the concept of mutah to sisters (this lecture was for sisters). Do you think he would encourage his own biological sisters to perform mutah? Would he accept your proposal to commit mutah with his daughter?
You're not interested in what Mutah is, what it's for, why it's for and the circumstances and the reason and purpose it's for. I give you an in depth analysis and explanation which you completely disregard and yapp on continuously about what's wrong with someone (feroz) being recommended Mutah then asking the person who recommends it if he can do Mutah with any of his females or if he knows anyone.
Mutah is recommended to those who are in a particular situation or condition or face a particular scenario or role. You're completely disregarding the definition and meaning and the reason and purpose. Mutah isn't an option or choice. All you're doing is jumping up and down trying to point score which isn't happening or working.
Nobody is selling Mutah and nobody is buying it. It's not something for sale or to be bought. It's not a Sunah or something the Prophet (s) practiced openly and commonly for it to be a Sunah. The Prophet (s) made it permissible and you know why. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES!
Or if you know any other reason why it was made permissible then go ahead and tell me rather than letting off tantrums.
Arranged Marriages, read the word attached 'ARRANGED'. Arranged by whom? By representatives/Guardians/Elders. Excuse me but you're talking nonsense. In the Muslim community it is embarrassing for the girls side even if the boy or man approaches the family of the girl himself and some even considered such approach by a male as an insult. They would say to the male that;
" don't you have amy manners or decency? Get an elder or guardian and put them forward as a representative".
I don't know what world and which generation you're living in.
In schools and colleges Muslim Lads frequently look and stare at girls and men at women in the Muslim community. But when it comes to their sisters or daughters (females) they don't want anyone turning their looks in that direction. You know this type of attitude and hypocrisy exists.
Mutah is recommended to those who are in that particular situation or condition or who face it. Yes Mutah is done with women or girls but Mutah isn't just for men it's for women and girls too. In fact not for men and women or boys and girls but for those who face that situation or condition.
Stop playing around and beating around the bush. Any comment from you on Misyar marriage practiced within Ahle Sunah? Mutah was permissible and then made prohibited according to Sunis but what about Misyar marriage which has got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah or does it?
You're not interested in what Mutah is, what it's for, why it's for and the circumstances and the reason and purpose it's for.
I give you an in depth analysis and explanation which you completely disregard and yapp on continuously
about what's wrong with someone (feroz) being recommended Mutah then asking the person who recommends it if he can do Mutah with any of his females or if he knows anyone.
Mutah is recommended to those who are in a particular situation or condition or face a particular scenario or role. You're completely disregarding the definition and meaning and the reason and purpose. Mutah isn't an option or choice. All you're doing is jumping up and down trying to point score which isn't happening or working.
Nobody is selling Mutah and nobody is buying it.
In the Muslim community it is embarrassing for the girls side even if the boy or man approaches the family of the girl himself and some even considered such approach by a male as an insult. They would say to the male that;
" don't you have amy manners or decency? Get an elder or guardian and put them forward as a representative".
In schools and colleges Muslim Lads frequently look and stare at girls and men at women in the Muslim community. But when it comes to their sisters or daughters (females) they don't want anyone turning their looks in that direction. You know this type of attitude and hypocrisy exists.
Mutah is recommended to those who are in that particular situation or condition or who face it.
Stop playing around and beating around the bush. Any comment from you on Misyar marriage practiced within Ahle Sunah? Mutah was permissible and then made prohibited according to Sunis but what about Misyar marriage which has got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah or does it?
It's not a Sunah or something the Prophet (s) practiced openly and commonly for it to be a Sunah. The Prophet (s) made it permissible and you know why. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES!
^
I thought Twelvers would be so proud of performing Mut'ah, especially since in their minds it was 'Umar (RAA) who forbade it and they are thus 'reviving a dormant Sunnah abolished by usurpers' - this is in fact what is mentioned in one of their modern works. The defensiveness thus seems out of place.
Like I said before that you and certain others, your aim is to look for things then take them out of context and blow them out of proportion just to make Shiaism and the Shias look bad. And this is exactly what this😊 website is created for. I've got nothing else to say to you. 😕
There was nothing blown out of proportion nor taken out of context, only the fact that Shias very clearly mentioned the purpose of aggrandizing Mut'ah as a way to get back at 'Umar (RAA), yet they betrayed their own putative declarations.
Anyway, seems with all the defensiveness of the Twelvers that 'Umar (RAA) did win this round of battle after all against the Shias and their "Ahl ul Bayt". 😊
One should bear in mind that Mut’ah was something allowed in Islam due to it being a Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) that Umar had sought to exterminate. As Mut’ah was pursuant to the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), one can not from works rendered by scholars that any attempt reinstate an act permissible in Islam that has gradually eroded due to customs of and individual(s) or masses is a commendable act, so much so that the reward for an individual that re-introduces or revives a dead Sunnah is he shall be in Rasulullah’s midst / rank on the Day of Judgment. This is clearly proven from the hadith in Jama al Tirmidhi, Bab al Ulum page 92 [Printed in Deoband]:
Rasulullah (s) stated: ‘Whoever revives my Sunnah, has revived me, whoever revives me shall be in Paradise with me”
This is the reward for reviving a dead Sunnah: that such a person will be in the midst of where Rasulullah (s) resides on the Day of Judgment.
To sum up:
Iceman said mutah is not a sunnah, but this clearly contradicts the shia books.
Also he has not brought forward one single evidence from shia books that it is a restricted practice.
Clearly iceman is either confused & mistaken or his views are not that of the 12er sect on this matter.
Brother muslim720 had already mentioned this Twelver narration in the last page:
11 – And by the isnad from Ibn `Isa from Ibn al-Hajjaj from al-`Ala from Muhammad b. Muslim from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: He said to me: Have you done mut`a? I said: No. He said: Do not leave the world until you have revived the Sunna.
For those interested, they can see that narrations like the above are not isolated; the following quote from the Shiapen site (http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/refuting-the-argument-that-mutah-is-immoral-part-ii.html (http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/mutah/refuting-the-argument-that-mutah-is-immoral-part-ii.html)) when trying to explain another narration on the practitioners of Mutah being in the rank of the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) on Qiyamah bears on this matter:
The attempt was made by the Shiapen to discredit the narration in the earlier part of their reply, but in the above they have corroborated its signification. In any case, the point stands: This is viewed this as a Sunnah that was abolished by an "usurper" like 'Umar (RAA), and the reward for performing it and reviving it is enormous. That the issue is treated in a taboo nature and Twelvers continue to be zigzagging in their positions when confronted even slightly is a big clue as to what is really going on in their midst.
@iceman
You said mutah was not sunnah yet your books say it is.
You say it is restricted, but you cannot provide any evidence to back this claim of yours.
Not a single evidence from shia hadith to back your claims.
Are you some bigshot grand daddy of all daddy ayatollahs that we should believe your words without any hadith to back them up?
To say is not sunnah is your words which go against the main view of your sect.
To say it is for restricted situations is what you & some of your modern day ayatollahs claim without any hadiths from your sect to back it up.
Its positive to see that you & some of your modern scholars are going away & against the traditional 12er view of mutah being an unrestricted recommended sunnah.
You’re half way there, inshAllah you’ll make the full transformation.
Iceman:
Stop asking what sunni belief is. Open a seperate thread for that.
Stick to the topic of this thread.
We sunni’s believe it was restricted but this is not the topic of the thread.
You say Quran & Sunnah are what you should stick to. So can you prove to me that mutah was a restricted practice from your shia source of sunnah?
Still too hesitant and shy to answer my questions and to comment on the points I made. Come on, you surely aren't that weak, are you?
The Shia opinion on Mutah is clear. It is not and I repeat it is not practiced commonly, openly or freely within the Shia community. Why? Not because it's taboo but because it is recommended to those or is for those who face exceptional circumstances.
Simple and straightforward. It is not recommended to all and everyone to do as they please. It is not recommended (Mustahab) on these grounds such as Mustahab fasting or prayers.
It is not encouraged or recommended to all and everyone as Umrah. Vast majority aren't interested or keen on Mutah but why? Not because it's taboo or disliked but because they don't feel or have the urge or need for it. They don't face those exceptional circumstances.
If any guy were to approach me to ask if he can do a Mutah with my daughter he's not leaving in one piece. :dwarf:
Permission denied
هو العمل الذي حكمه الشرعي الاستحباب والإتيان به أفضل من تركه مع أنه لا إشكال في تركه
So far we have learned that
1) iceman/Ameen is completely out of touch with the 12er community (here is another two threads on Shiachat talking about the tabooness of Mut'ah, they are both WITHIN THE LAST TWO DAYS!) http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235055570-doing-mutah-with-a-virgin-girl/
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235055519-muta-is-impossible-in-our-times/
2) iceman/ameen does not know what the word "mustahabb/sunnah" means in the 12er Madhhab.
It is the action which the Sharee'ah rules to be mustahabb and which doing is better than not doing it even though there is nothing wrong with not doing it.
So according to the fatwa you posted above, Ayatollah Khamini considers doing Mut'ah better than not doing it, even though there is nothing wrong with not doing it. Yet, iceman/ameen wants us to believe that the 12er ruling is "clear" that it is in certain situations.
3) iceman/ameen, much like link before him, does not represent the 12er madhhab at all and seems to not know anything about it. Since this is a site refuting 12er Shi'asim, I don't really see why he continues to post here.
Iceman:
Still waiting for you to prove that mutah is for restricted circumstances in shia madhab.
You hold this opinion without any evidence from shia sources. Its a good sign that you are rejecting the shia tradition.
Inshallah open your eyes, ears & heart more & reject the resr of the falsehood of your sect.
Iceman show me from Quran & Sunnah that its a restricted practice.
Can everyone just drop it? Please! Put your money where your mouth is....you support this "sunnah", may your lineage be full of offspring of mutah, ancestors and descendants, for whom Allah (swt) has promised forgiveness, as per your narration.
As for us, may Allah (swt) keep us devoid of this "sunnah". Khalas!
Iceman show me from Quran & the sunnah you follow that mutah is only for certain circumstances.
Don’t quote sunni books. I’m not asking you to prove the sunni view.
Prove from the Quran & THE SUNNAH YOU FOLLOW
They keep coming at me hoping for a breakthrough in the argument. But I'm not letting that happen.
I've proved it to you. It was made permissible by the Prophet (s) due to exceptional circumstances. You've lost the argument. And you still want to put up a confrontational stance.
continue to adopt more sunni beliefs, the beliefs of the mainstream & majority muslims & become more united by rejecting extreme fringe sects like the 12ers.
You are a liar! I dropped this discussion but you had more to say (you can go back and confirm this). And for as long as there is insincerity and double-talk from your side, there will be no "breakthrough" in the argument. However, the matter is quite clear!
Yes as Iceman believes mutah is for exceptional circumstances. As sunni’s we believe mutah WAS for such cases only but was then banned.
Inshallah the brother is half way there on this issue.
I respect that he isn’t stubbornly following the classical shia beliefs all the time.
The Sunni view;
The reality is that Mutah was permissible in the early days of Islam, but was eventually banned categorically by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). This is very similar to wine, which was at first permissible in Islam, and it was only later in time that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) forbade it. The prohibitions against wine were expounded slowly over a period of time. In the beginning, drinking wine was permissible and many of the Sahabah did it. Then, the Quran declared that wine was harmful and bad. After some more time, the Quran forbade approaching prayer whilst drunk. After the people had become accustomed to this, it was only then that they were ready so that Allah and His Messenger (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) completely forbade wine.
Why did the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) first allow wine and then later forbid it? This was only because Islam was revealed in stages, and the faith was going through a transitional period, with the Shariah being expounded during the life-span of the Prophet. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had not banned wine in stages, and instead had he (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) simply banned wine immediately, it would have been very hard for the early Muslims who were accustomed to wine-drinking, which was a hobby of the pagan Arabs. Many of them were early converts and their faith was weak. They had an addiction to wine, and many of them would become apostates if wine was suddenly banned outright. So, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) banned wine in gradual stages so that it was easier on the people.
Likewise, Mutah was a hobby of the pagan Arabs. Hence, it was not forbidden in the beginning. This is because Islam was in a transitional stage. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) initially allowed Mutah on a few occassions because there were many new converts to Islam who had weak faith. They were often in times of war away from their wives, in which their desires got the best of them since they were not accustomed to the chastity of Islam. In order to prevent the apostacy of these new converts over the issue of Mutah, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not forbid Mutah immediately. (And these are the Hadith which the Shia quote to “prove” that Sunnis believe in the permissibility of Mutah.)
Once the Muslims became stronger in faith, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) categorically banned the practise of Mutah.
Would you agree to the above? If yes then I will question you regarding the above if you're up for it.
Iceman you seem confused.
You follow sunni sources for sunnah? And reject the shia sources for sunnah?
Also if you want to discuss sunni beliefs related to mutah then open a thread to discuss it.
This thread is regarding mutah & shia.
While I agree that it is awesome that he rejected the 12er position and adopted the position of ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه, I still think it's much safer to go all out and take the position of Imam Omar and Imam Ali رضي الله عنهما as their position is much more likely to be correct.
Either case, Alhamdulilah, we all agree that Mut'ah, at best, is equivelant to eating pork when a person has no other choice and that the ahadeeth that 12ers narrate about the virtues of Mut'ah are 100% fabricated. :)
I'm not confused. My question is simple and it's about Mutah, why did the Prophet (s) prohibit Mutah?
Can't answer? Too afraid or too hesitant? No need to start another thread for this.
You’re asking stuff that is not the topic of the thread. Hence the need to open a new thread for that.
No one is scared to answer. Its about sticking to the topic.
You have failed to prove from shia sources that mutah is for exceptional circumstances.
So its clear in 12er sect that mutah isn’t just for exceptional circumstances.
Unless some other shia posters wants to prove otherwise, this topic is concluded.
Mutah isn't openly and commonly practiced within the Shia community, not because it's taboo but because it's practiced by only some due to exceptional circumstances. For a known and clear fact you don't need any sources.
It was permissible by the Prophet (s) and again it wasn't practiced even during the Prophet's (s) time openly and commonly. It was only practiced due to exceptional circumstances. This is also a known and clear fact for which one doesn't need sources.
Go and spend your time doing something useful.
This thread is designated to paint a bad picture about Shiaism by picking things up from Shia sources at random then taking them out of context and giving it your own interpretation and meaning that you desire. Who are we trying to fool.
Mutah isn't openly and commonly practiced within the Shia community, not because it's taboo but because it's practiced by only some due to exceptional circumstances. For a known and clear fact you don't need any sources.
It was permissible by the Prophet (s) and again it wasn't practiced even during the Prophet's (s) time openly and commonly. It was only practiced due to exceptional circumstances. This is also a known and clear fact for which one doesn't need sources.
Go and spend your time doing something useful.
Just a note and advice to some Jahils.
It's an agreement between two individuals. It is recommended according to Shia Scholars because of the bad name given to Mutah and how it was down graded and devalued by rulers after Muhammad (s).
So you admit that you have no proof.
Thanks.
Case closed.
This is categorically incorrect, the thread only paints 12ers in a negative light because not all Shi'is practice Mut'ah.
1) The Shiachatters believe it is due to it being taboo in their community. Since I've never seen any Muslim community, 12er or non-12er, openly practice Mut'ah, I'm going with it is taboo.
2) We don't need evidence or sources on whether Mut'ah is something that was practiced in exceptional circumstances, we need sources that Mut'ah is understood that way according to the 12er Madhhab. This is the point that seems to be going over your head, but I personally believe you are purposefully ignoring. We don't care how Mut'ah was practiced, or how you intrepret it or anything; we care about 12er Scholars actually saying what you are saying. We told you already, if you want to take the position of ibn Abbass رضي الله عنه then cool, you have taken the position of a great Companion and member of Ahl al-Bayt, but we're going to take the position of Omar and Ali رضي الله عنهما as it is more likely that their position is correct. That leaves us with a 3rd view, the one adopted by the 12ers which neither you or I agree with.
We need sources that that is the 12er opinion. Just wanted to reiterate that. If you don't agree with the 12er view, then we want someone who agrees with the 12er view to come and have a discussion here.
Having this discussion with you isn't useful? Why do you suppose that is?
This is not addressing the issue. If I point out that what you believe is problematic, then there is no need to mention cases where it wouldn't be problematic. It is enough if there are cases (which aren't too unusal or fantastical) where it is problematic. A very simple example is if a man in a Christian marriage converts and fears his wife's influence on the children, he can either continue the marriage or divorce her. It can't be that both these options are disliked.
Proof? How? And why? Because here it starts to get even more confusing for me. When I told you that a permanent marriage with a Christian is forbidden, you told me that it's possible but highly discouraged. However, a temporary marriage is totally fine if you are unmarried. I told you why, you told me, this gives the woman time to learn about Islam and eventually embrace Islam. So far so good.
Then we have married men, they are also as per obligatory precaution(Sistani) not allowed to marry a Christian. In addition, they are absolutely not allowed to temporarily marry a Christian without the consent of the first wife and even with her consent it is not allowed as per obligatory precaution(Sistani). The problem is that normally the first wife can't prevent the husband to marry a second Muslim wife permanently and if she consents there is no problem at all. But the whole idea of temporarily marrying a Christian according to you was to give her time to convert and marry her permanently as a Muslim wife, so how can the first wife stop this, even worse how can it be forbidden even with her consent? Especially if the husband is away from his first wife in a foreign country and especially if he stipulates that no intercourse will place, how can this effect the rights of his first wife?
Do you disagree with the last sentence? What rights and obligations are obtained besides these especially if contraceptives are used to prevent pregnancy?
None of these definitions of promiscuity are correct, it is not indiscriminate sexual behaviour ignoring religious duties or boundaries nor is it mere access to numerous sexual partners. Again, for the sake of not turning this in a semantic discussion, it doesn't even matter that much. I defined it clearly and asked you a question regarding it. As long as the question is clear then the correct definition is of minor concern.
First of all, I defined casual sex as intercourse for the sole purpose of satisfying sexual needs without any commitment or attachment to the other partner and then I defined promiscuity as frequent casual sex with different partners where you are indifferent on a personal level to the choice of your partner. My question to you regarding this is, does the fact that mut'ah is allowed according to you allow you to be promiscuous and do you have an issue with this?
You said;
"This is categorically incorrect, the thread only paints 12ers in a negative light because not all Shi'is practice Mut'ah."
Mutah isn't something that is there to be practiced just for the sake of it. But in fact it is there for those who feel the need and urge. Those who face certain situations and conditions. I just don't know how many times this has to be repeated.
"Not all Shias practice Mutah", let me correct this for you. Only those engage in Mutah who feel the need to and have the urge based on the situation and condition they face.
What does 'Taboo' mean? Define it for me and we'll take it from there
a social or religious custom prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing.
Side note: Mutah isn't TABOO within the Shia community, it's just not practiced openly and commonly. And neither was it during the Prophet's (s) time.
I've made it clear to you and I will make it clear again, don't bring in something written in a book by a Shia Scholar or any statement or Fatwa of a Shia Scholar and start to give your own understanding and explanation. Ask and get to know first rather than banging on ignorantly about it.
There is no separate or different view adopted by the 12r Shias about Mutah.
We believe in and follow the Messenger (s). Mutah was made permissible by the Prophet (s) for a reason and purpose, and that reason and purpose was certain situations and conditions some individuals faced. And therefore Mutah was practiced by some due to exceptional circumstances. That is exactly the 12r view.
Before you invite anyone other to discuss, first try and get to know and understand what the 12r view is. I can put forward a hell of a lot from Suni authentic books or statements or Fatwas from Suni Scholars but some of you have and will easily say, "well we don't accept that". So what am I suppose to make of this, that you don't agree with the Suni view?
What applies to you applies to us and that is what is general. If a Shia Scholar says something, be it in the face of Fatwa or just a statement based on his thought, opinion or point of view, it is not necessary that this is the view of the 12r Mazhab and the entire 12r community.
Even Scholars such as Mujtahids and Ayatollahs differ. And this also applies to you, so what are you trying to prove here? You said; "Having this discussion with you isn't useful? Why do you suppose that is?" Because you're trying to force me to accept what you believe in about the 12rs. You guys are not from this community and you guys don't even like and think much of this Mazhab and it's community, and you guys go around looking for bits and pieces you can find and want us to accept that this is the 12r Mazhab and community. This is what the problem is.
Look, You can't go to a girl and say: "Hey Babe, wanna do Mutah?' Your either gonna get whacked or her older brother is going to size you up really good. You would first have to approach her, charm her, court her, get her number. Spend a month+ with her. Then she will want to go for a Mutah with you. But this comes down in "Female seduction" which is Haram in Islam. If seduction is haram then how the hell do you get a Mutah? :dry:
It's not haram in any way shapre or form, it's just been made next to impossible by the munafiqeen that make up the vast majority of the community in regards to this issue. The community has made an essential thing a taboo. It's absurd.
You have a point.....my husband and I did mutah with permission of everyone but it was a non physical thing. We only knew each other a week and I was staying with my mother in law and he was there etc etc etc. Right after that we permanently married.....it was done to solve distance problems.
And I don't think it's simply a matter of the issue being taboo. It's a matter of people not wanting their daughters to get taken advantage of. Would you entrust your daughter to some dude you barely know?
I have heard that mutah is the worst kind of halal. Like divorce for example, its halal but the worst kind of halal (أبغض الحلال). Can someone please confirm this?
The reason I ask is because I suggested to one of my cousin who got divorced recently for the third time, to get married mutah since she cannot have kids and is in her 40's. And also her family are really furious with her because of her recent divorce. She however (and i was shocked to hear this) said that mutah is extremely frowned upon and its embarrassing and people normally do it in secret , and according to her if she got married mutah she will not be able to enjoy the relationship because she would never be able to go out in public with her husband.
Muslims look down on it, but non-Muslims do not. That's because mutah is basically halal dating - it lacks the stability and family structure of permanent marriage.
Pakistani shias are as anti mutah as can be.
So are arab shias. And some believe its the worst kind of halal...as in halal but should be avoided just like divorce should be avoided as much as possible. And not everyone marries mutah for sex only, people do it for other reasons. Like my cousin would want to do it to have a companion and someone to share her life with , go to restaurant, travel...etc. But she cant unfortunately because she would be disgraced by society.
It is the 'Ulama that are responsible to shape the culture of the religious community. The problem is our 'Ulama get paid by the religious community so they avoid bringing up topics that upset their employers and mut'ah is one of these topics.
Pakistani 'Ulama are notoriously dependent on people's praise to earn their salaries. That is why most do not say a word in favor of mut'ah publicly but they themselves would not be hesitant to practice it themselves privately. If this is not hypocrisy then what is
i wouldn't say it's unknown in Indian subcontinent, but it's a taboo for sure. And the magnitude of it being a taboo depends on the kind of family a person hails from. If u belong to a family educated enough then u will have no problem in at least discussing it's theory, but discussing its practicality is a no-no.
Where I come from it is very frowned upon. We cant even speek of it or ask questions about without being yelled at. Personally I wouldn't engage myself in this thing even if it is halal. For me, marriage is sacred and I want to keep it that way. I dont want no boy playing around with me temporary. But I understand why muta became halal in the first place but I just feel that nowadays people are doing it just because they can and taking advantage of this rule and misuse it.
I understand your zeal for mutah due to all the haram that is scooping up the young.... However....
Not to be a pain - well guess I am being a pain - but.. according to what you have written, men, after nikah, who before marriage:
have been celibate - will continue to be celibate as there is something wrong with their levels of testosterone and they probably will not be able to have children
have been masturbating - will continue to masturbate as it has become an ingrained habit and the wife is in for some nasty surprises
have been committing zina - will continue to commit zina as this is a lifestyle that is now impossible to break - and this will lead to divorce
So, to continue that line of reasoning, men/boys who contract mutah will also carry this habit into permanent marriage as, according to the above reasoning, it will be a lifestyle that is difficult (impossible) to break. In addition, as it is halal, there are no Islamic restrictions as there are with the above and would be much much easier to continue. If this is true, you will not get many women who will welcome this lifestyle into their family life.
What IS real is that girls that engage in mutah are NOT considered marriageable by prospective suitors and their families - so until that is addressed - this will remain an academic discussion that goes nowhere.
Muslim720 thanks for your post. You've brought another unreferenced hadith and so I'm afraid you've left me with little I can say.
Even if you bring fully referenced ahadith, it will not have the effect you appear to desire, since Islamic tenets and 'aqa'id are almost never derived from single or minimal hadith sources.
Your report of what the Shi'i scholar at the masjid told you about the status of the Imams(as) is not something I've heard myself, though I will repeat that it's to your credit that you engage with the brothers there in the first place.
If you would like to know the purity of the Shi'i concept of Tawhid, I would recommend you to read the Sahifa Sajjadiya of Imam Zayn al Abideen(as). Do not underestimate the value of what I'm about to link you:
https://www.al-islam.org/sahifa-al-kamilah-sajjadiyya-imam-zain-ul-abideen
A madhhab (Arabic: مذهب maḏhab, IPA: [ˈmaðhab], "way to act"; pl. مذاهب maḏāhib, [maˈðaːhɪb]) is a school of thought within fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). In the first 150 years of Islam, there were numerous madhahib, most of which have become extinct or merged with other schools. The Amman Message, which was endorsed in 2005 by prominent Islamic scholars around the world, recognized four Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali), two Shia schools (Ja'fari, Zaidi), the Ibadi school and the Zahiri school.
Muslim720, Marriage in general is a "highly encouraged practice", not only temporary marriage, though in each case, it depends on circumstances.
So you feel it's hypocrisy if a sheikh talks about mut'ah but doesn't want it for his own daughter? Well naturally, none of us are immune from hypocrisy, but there are also genuine reasons.
Mut'ah which is consummated certainly isn't recommend for women who are virgins, and so the sheikh would rightly decline it for his unmarried daughter, like anyone else.
It's mainly divorced or widowed women who would be eligible for this, whereby parental consent isn't an issue.
As for the Sahifa Sajjadiya, when I linked it to you I advised you not to underestimate its value.
From your response however - your link back to an anonymous short article on this site - I feel reasonably sure that you have not read so far as the introduction.
If you will take no time to read and contemplate the Sahifa Sajjadiya before trying to contradict it, what makes you think that your contact with Shia Muslims on the whole isn't reflective of this?
Much as I admire your inclination to dialogue, I would ask you to question if your overall approach is fair-minded enough to do justice to the efforts you make in your visits to your local masaajid.
For example, your accounts here scarcely mention anything therein which you find beautiful or inspiring. Yet when I visit masaajid, which I do all over the world, I find more that's beautiful and inspiring than I could ever hope to describe.
Is there any difference between you and me whereby our experiences could be so different? Or is it something else?
Ya Iceman, first of all, madhhab does not mean religion. Madhhab means
I'm amazed that you were able to copy and paste all that you did, but you didn't the one thing that would contradict your point, amazing level of deception.
Nevertheless, unless you can provide ONE Shi'i scholar who agrees with you, then what you are saying does not represent the Shi'i school/madhhab/sect, whatever you want to call it. How are you not able to grasp this? :o
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
بارك الله فيك, but my problem with you have wrote is that it totally contradicts what I was told Mut'ah was for. I was told Mut'ah was a type of "halal dating" because Muslims in the West are forced to get married later. This level of contradictory answers towards Mut'ah has become pretty commonplace for those I discuss this with; its' as if the whole point of it is to defend Mut'ah at any cost; even if there isn't any practical application for it.
But I will say this, what exactly do you find so particularly special about this Sahifa? You can't just link to an article and expect people to read it; we haven't established that you are any kind of authority that we would read anything you recommend, therefore, you should at least give a reason to read it.
And don't you think that haven't issues with its authenticity is something to take into consideration before reading it? How can something be mutawatir that ends up going back to unknown people? That doesn't make any sense.
I can't speak for the brother's experience going to different Masaajid, but I feel the same way you do at every Masjid, except the 12er Shi'i ones. I find unity at all the Masaajid all over the world, people from all kinds of sects, walks of life, backgrounds, cultures, except the 12er Shi'i Masaajid; ever wonder why?
Ya Iceman, first of all, madhhab does not mean religion. Madhhab means
I'm amazed that you were able to copy and paste all that you did, but you didn't the one thing that would contradict your point, amazing level of deception.
Nevertheless, unless you can provide ONE Shi'i scholar who agrees with you, then what you are saying does not represent the Shi'i school/madhhab/sect, whatever you want to call it. How are you not able to grasp this? :o
Muslim720, Marriage in general is a "highly encouraged practice", not only temporary marriage, though in each case, it depends on circumstances.
So you feel it's hypocrisy if a sheikh talks about mut'ah but doesn't want it for his own daughter?
Mut'ah which is consummated certainly isn't recommend for women who are virgins, and so the sheikh would rightly decline it for his unmarried daughter, like anyone else.
As for the Sahifa Sajjadiya, when I linked it to you I advised you not to underestimate its value.
From your response however - your link back to an anonymous short article on this site - I feel reasonably sure that you have not read so far as the introduction.
For example, your accounts here scarcely mention anything therein which you find beautiful or inspiring.
In the end and at the end Qoran and Sunah is and comes above any Scholar or book.
Since you have required me to respond in your chosen fashion, I will oblige.I do not require you to respond in a certain fashion, I was quite fine the way you responded. I simply respond the way I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I disagree with your view that we haven't found something we can both agree on and what may appear to you as something I have overlooked may simply be something we can not agree on.
Your example pertains to all Muslims, so I don't see it as a meaningful point of dispute; and it can in fact be that both options are disliked, whereby we implement the principle of the lesser of two evils, which again is held by all Muslims:
https://daruliftaa.com/node/5909
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=360697
I did not say that "the whole idea of marrying a Christan woman was to give her time to convert and marry her permanently as a Muslim wife". On the contrary, if you read the aforementioned post of mine (#168) I very clearly bring in an alternative relating to physical needs.
We are discussing a scholarly position and the "proof" of that position lies in the methodology the relevant scholars have used to arrive at their fatawa. To my understanding, reasons for the prohibition of a man with a Muslim wife taking a Christian wife include the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion.
Again I will say that a similar claim could be made against the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. To recap, your contention is:
"Suffice to say that if one were to marry without stating any conditions, many rights and obligations would solidify due to absence of stating any conditions. Mut'ah on the other hand, if one were to contract that without stating any specific conditions it would result in hardly anything else besides conjugal rights and financial compensation.".
Since a large number of the actual Islamic (as opposed to cultural) rights of nikah are conjugal and financial in nature, you are taking issue here with something which applies to Islam itself. Your nebulous reference to what you believe would "solidify" under nikah may also be possible under mut'ah.
Yes, mut'ah generally does have different social allocations, though I believe that the way you're trying to articulate this is self-refuting.
My response to your question is that the permissibility of mut'ah does not correspond to an acceptance of promiscuity, because mut'ah necessarily involves respecting the rights and boundaries laid down by Allah(swt).
It neither takes place "without any commitment or attachment" nor with the participants being "indifferent on a personal level to the choice of your partner".
I will try to frame these syllogisms in a way that we can each agree to them without compromising our respective positions. There are two premises and a conclusion. If we can agree on the premises, the conclusion should be sound and an agreement can be reached. So as for the first one:
*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherenty immoral
*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah
*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral
I will form a second syllogism from your statement that you don't believe Muslims are embarrassed by their carnal desires - a statement in which I find both inaccuracy and the semblance of common ground, so I will opt for the latter:
*Carnal desire, in itself, isn't something we need be embarrassed by
*A function of mut'ah is to provide a halal outlet for carnal desire
*Therefore, this function of mut'ah isn't something we need be embarrassed by
I do not require you to respond in a certain fashion, I was quite fine the way you responded. I simply respond the way I feel most comfortable with and makes the most sense to me. I disagree with your view that we haven't found something we can both agree on and what may appear to you as something I have overlooked may simply be something we can not agree on.
In any case, finding common ground is not something I consider to be the goal of these kind of discussions in and of itself and the reason for useless argumentation is, as I have found in a lot of your comments, the fact that you misquote, misunderstand or distort what has been said. I will try to explain what I mean:
It doesn't pertain to all Muslims, because as I(and others) have already told you, for more than three times now, that divorce is only disliked without a valid reason. Furthermore, in general, it is absolutely not possible that all your possible options are disliked.
I am extremely suprised that you are trying to maintain that if there are only two options, both options can be disliked, as it is logically speaking contradictory. When an act is disliked it means that it's better and you get a reward for NOT doing such an act, however you will neither incur a sin nor be rewarded for doing such an act. In the case of having two options exclusively, for example A and B, then not doing A means doing B and not doing B means doing A. However, if we say that A is disliked, then you get a reward for not doing A(ie doing B) and no reward for doing A. It is then absolutely impossible that B is also disliked, ie you get a reward for not doing B, ie doing A. This is simply a logical contradiction.
Nevertheless, what I then don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is possible but discouraged and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?
How does this answer my question? I asked, what are the rights and obligations obtained besides the ones I mentioned? Again, an example of useless argumentation
You see, we can find common ground. I agree that promiscuity does not respect the rights and boundaries laid down by Allah. However, I disagree from a Shi'i perspective which is the issue here. What rights and boundaries are transgressed if one has a desire to be promiscuous (in a halal way) from a Shi'i perspective? How is sexual gratification without commitment or attachment forbidden or disliked? Indifference on a personal level is the natural result of this if you do it frequently, which you will do if your desires are present frequently.
This is too vague and our possible agreement can create a false impression. First of all, the agreement of Muslims is irrelevant here and only complicates matters, so no reason to add it.
Second of all, no action is inherently immoral as an insane man or a dog for example can perform any action without it being considered immoral. Actions in and of themselves are not immoral, the intention and the conditions under which you do something is what makes an action immoral.
Third of all, it depends on what you define as immoral. If you mean by immoral something evil or harmful, you just brought up the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils, so the possibility of being instructed to do something evil or harmful because the only other alternative is more evil is present and your first premise would be doubtful. If you mean by immoral something that ought to be done, it is again too vague, because what ought to be done depends on the circumstances and the alternatives you have. If by immoral it is meant something that is not virtuous, then we know that things that are disliked are not virtuous as not doing them is what is considered to be virtuous instead.
Fourth, your assertion that he "instructed" people to do mut'ah is not proven to me yet. All I know is that he allowed it or permitted it which is different from instructing. If the Prophet(saws) instructs you to do something then you should do it, if the Prophet(saws) permits you to do something then you neither should do it nor should not do it. From the narrations I read it never was instructed, so your second premise would be false anyway and the first premise is way too vague.
The second premise is problematic, as mut'ah in and of itself isn't halal or haram and existed prior to the Prophethood of Our Prophet(saws) so any function of mut'ah can't be to provide a "halal" outlet for anything. You probably mean:
*Carnal desire, in itself, isn't something we need to be embarrassed by
*A function of mut'ah is to provide an outlet for carnal desires
*Therefore, this function of mut'ah isn't something we need to be embarrassed by
In this case, the conclusion would not follow.
Although it would require another topic, if you ask me, I have many beautiful or inspiring accounts of my visits to all masaajid, including the Shia ones. Within the context of topics we disagree upon, of course I will narrate incidents of disagreements. If you were to initiate a topic on how close the two branches are, I have a ton of positive stories to share.
Muslim 720, I find this intriguing
You had a blank canvas to say anything you liked about your visits to those masaajid, especially since it's a topic of your own introduction. You've chosen to relate the experiences negatively even though there's no compulsion for you to do so.
I've also related my experiences visiting different masaajid - one of my first posts on here was about my time in the Sultan Ahmet Camii (Blue Mosque) in Istanbul. Neither did I find anything there which caused me upset, nor would I fixate upon it if I did.
So I'll ask you again: is there any difference between us whereby our experiences are so diverse? If you say you've had good experiences in masaajid frequented by Shia Muslims, why not describe them here? Are those experiences not a valid part of the discussion? Do you feel that you will lose credibility on this site by speaking about Shia Muslims in a complimentary way?
As for your points about mut'ah with virgins, there's a consensus among Shia scholars regarding the father's permission. If you wish to undermine this consensus, it would be necessary for you to bring your evidence to those scholars in an attempt to change their minds, though needless to say this wouldn't prove successful.
The scholars would already have taken any genuine ahadith into account when deriving their opinions and fatawa.
GreatChineseFall, Your penultimate sentence is a description of the way people tend to feel during debates in general. I think semantics is a large part of this, along with the fact that we often find it difficult to collect our fluid thoughts into prosaic expressions.
Since you are a clear and articulate communicator, your fear of being misunderstood is surely unfounded. Personally, I don’t feel misquoted, misunderstood or distorted. Rather, I think you simply disagree with me, for reasons which, so far, I respect.
And this is precisely why I introduced the principle of the lesser of two evils, whereby a disliked option becomes acceptable due to necessity. The fact that I brought up this principle should make it perfectly clear to you that I have amply understood your oft-repeated statement about divorce, along with your other points.
So to return this to the original context, there is no inconsistency in the teachings of the school of Ahl al Bayt(as) concerning mut’ah with Kitabi women, nor are the principles different from those encountered by Sunni Muslims regarding permanent marriage with Kitabi women. In either case, there are a variety of viable options, and if a dilemma does arise involving two disliked options then the least disliked of the two will become acceptable.
Apparently this is a simple misunderstanding. Permanent marriage with a Christian is likewise ‘’absolutely forbidden’’ for a man with a Muslim wife.Proof? The fatwa I read didn't make a clear distinction between unmarried and married men.
Please slow down, my friend. I don’t believe that my response was so oblique as to have been obscure: the actual rights and obligations in temporary marriage, beyond the ones you mentioned (conjugal rights and financial compensation) might well be regarded as few in number - I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this.
The point is that the same thing may be said of permanent marriage, so in order to criticise temporary marriage in this way, you have to criticise the Islamic concept of marriage on the whole. This is actually a very common way for non-Muslims to criticise Islamic marriage and I would suggest that this approach is highly inadvisable for a Muslim to adopt.
Accordingly, there is no such thing as being ‘’promiscuous in a halal way’’ because in order for a relationship to be halal, certain Islamic rights and boundaries have to be observed, whereby it is no longer casual or indiscriminate.
Commitment and attachment are both present in mut’ah, albeit in different ways from permanent marriage and for a fixed, rather than indefinite, period of time.
This brings us to the two syllogisms. As to your first point I will say that just because you see no reason, it doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
The common agreement of Muslims is vital because it confirms not only the moral paradigm within which we’re operating, but also that there is a consensus on this particular issue. So whereas there’s disagreement between Muslims on the sinless nature of the Holy Prophet(saws), this doesn’t extend to questioning anything he taught. It is of paramount importance to affirm this consensus before progressing.
As to your second and third points, these focus on the agency of intention within morality. However the words ‘’moral’’ or ‘’immoral’’ don’t necessarily preclude intention, nor do they do so customarily. In colloquial speech, when we say someone has done something immoral, this clearly doesn’t refer to what has been done inadvertently or under compulsion.
I asked you to identify if there was anything in the premise which necessarily had to be changed, and since the definition of ‘’immoral’’ doesn’t necessarily, nor even usually, preclude either intention or circumstance, these cannot be adduced as reasons why the word should be rendered inoperative here.
As to your fourth point, here is the evidence you have asked for:There is no encouragement let alone active encouragement proven from the first narration. And encouragement is not instruction anyway, if the Prophet(saws) instructs something it is obligatory and you would sin if you would not do it as opposed to encouragement where there is no sin.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Marriage/Mutah/hadith_muslim.html
The very first hadith here, number 3243, shows the Holy Prophet(saws) actively encouraging the sahaaba to mut’ah and showing them how to perform it. This is well within the definition of the word ‘’instruct’’.
There are many things in Islam which existed in some state during the Jahiliya, though when we discuss halal and haram, we are naturally referring to them in their Islamic form. It is with this understanding that the word ‘’halal’’ is included.
@GreatChineseFall you may have read the fatwa the wrong way.
Permanent or temporary marriage with a Christian woman - if one already has a Muslim wife - is not allowed based on obligatory precaution for Sistani, even if the Muslim wife consents to it.
I, too, find this intriguing. Side-stepping the crux of my post, you are clutching on to this one straw. I remind you that mutah (without sexual gratification) is pointless; the reason why it was made permissible was for the Companions (ra) to derive sexual pleasure without committing the sin of zina. I would like to return to that.
The Blue Mosque, aside from being a mosque, is pretty much a tourist site, as much as I plan to visit it someday, insha'Allah. The type of aqeedah lesson you receive from a local mosque, like I did, is not what you would experience there.
Now we are talking and I am totally okay with there being a consensus (that virgins require their guardians' permission). The issue, however, are the traditions which say that you can take virgins in mutah so long as their virginity are not spoiled. The very purpose of mutah, as I stated earlier, was sexual gratification. Without sex, mutah is pointless. Now you have one more problem if you adhere to the oft-repeated mantra that mutah allows one to be mahram so couples can interact freely before they are married. Mutah was not made permissible except for sexual needs. So now your problem is two-folds:
1. You support mutah but will not accept it for your own kith and kin.
2. You have violated the very premise of mutah (by providing it as a solution in various circumstances when it was only made permissible to address the sexual needs of those who were in dire circumstances).
How is it perfectly clear to me if you appear to agree with me but describe this issue as a point of dispute and explicitly negate what I just said? Surely, you didn't understand from me negating divorce being disliked as being a negation in general cases?
To return this to the original context, I suggested permanent marriage as a better alternative for the purposes you mentioned and you responded that deciding to permanently marry may eventually result in forcing you to do a disliked act, ie divorce. I told you that it wouldn't be disliked in that case, so since you agree with me, how is temporary marriage a solution for a problem that already has a solution and is much better in my opinion as it is optimistic in its intention and optimistic about a positive result?
Proof? The fatwa I read didn't make a clear distinction between unmarried and married men.
Your continuous reference to the similarity with a permanent marriage is a diversion from the issue. I believe it's not similar and I would provide proof to refute your possible allegations regarding marriage, however this just prolongs the discussion unnecessarily. Since you pointed me to the fact that there may be Non-Muslims reading, why don't you simply respond by defending temporary marriage without referencing to permanent marriage as you will automatically also defend permanent marriage, killing two birds with one stone?
You misunderstand, I am speaking from the perspective of a logician. The argument isn't valid unless we state that what all Muslims agree to is always true. This only brings further premises to the table and it would look something like:
*What all Muslims agree to is always true.
*All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed to anything inherently immoral
*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed to mut'ah
*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral
Instead of simply:
*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do anything inherently immoral
*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah
*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral
It would be easier and bring clarity to your argument, because to be honest, I find your attempts to use deductive reasoning lacking in meticulousness or at the very least confusing. For example:
Ah, but here is the problem, because the notion of an inherently immoral act becomes ill defined then. I assumed that with "something inherent in something else" it was meant a quality or an attribute that is automatically or permanently present in something else. Meaning, I would be able to say:
- If an insane man performs an inherently immoral act it is not immoral
- If a man performs an inherently immoral act due to compulsion or overpowering circumstances it is not immoral.
If I would generalize it would be:
- If a man performs an inherently immoral act it is not inherently immoral.
This last sentence is utter nonsense for any random reader, unless it is explained that there are actually two different meanings to inherent, your meaning and my meaning. I am fine with your definition or usage, as I said as long as things are clear there should be no problem, but it should be very clear. However, this reveals the problem with your syllogism. If we say that an inherently immoral act is an act that is always and automatically immoral if done by a concious agent, capable of assessing the morality of such act, without compulsion, then the first premise is false or at least not necessarily true. It has to be changed:
*The Holy Prophet(saws) never instructed anyone to do any act that is immoral under the circumstances he instructs you to do it.
*The Holy Prophet(saws) instructed some to do mut'ah
*Therefore, mut'ah is not inherently immoral
In this case, the argument is not valid
I don't really see the need to discuss the definition of promiscuity more than we already have, as long as there is clarity. I use the word promiscuity to avoid typing a very long definition. If you insist and want to make my life harder, I will avoid using the word promiscuity and type that definition. Otherwise, I don't really see how being promiscuous in a halal way is a contradiction in terms from the Shi'i perspective. What rights and boundaries? You have mentioned them a bunch of times now, but which rights and boundaries exactly prevent you from being promiscuous? Please quote the necessary material.
I have mentioned commitment without defining it clearly, because one might say that a neighbour is committed to his other neighbour or any person is committed to any other person. Commitment is simply dedication to achieve something. When we talk about commitment in the context of a sexual relationship, what is meant(or rather how I define it here, before you start a whole different discussion. As long as there is clarity we should be fine with any definition I come up with) any dedication in addition to any dedication one reasonably already has towards other people and to the exclusion of a commitment to achieve sexual gratification, to the exclusion of a commitment to financially compensate for trying to achieve that and to the exclusion of of a commitment not to have any other sexual partners. In this way we can say that a prostitute is not committed towards her client, which makes sense. There are actually others that should be excluded but for now, this is fine. In this case, I don't really see how someone NEEDS to be committed towards the other partner in a mut'ah marriage according to Shi'i scholars.
You keep saying this yet have not once provide a single proof from the Quran or shia sunnah.
So far you’ve relied on sunni sources & took the position of Ibn Abbas.
We’re not here to debate with those who support Ibn Abbas position.
Your belief is not the same of the classical 12er position here.
So its pointless debating eachother on this issue.
Iv'e provided you with the ultimate proof over and over again. That what ever the Prophet'sposition was, that is exactly what the 12rs is. Now if my belief isn't the same as the 12rs, then what exactly is the 12r position? What you put forward and the meaning and explanation that you give? You can't even clarify your own position that why did the Prophetmade Mutah permissible, what was the reason and purpose? And why did the Prophetsuddenly prohibit Mutah, what was the reason and purpose? You know us and our sect better than us and you aren't even familiar with yourselves and your own position.
A twelver belief would be from a twelver source.
You have failed to provide this yet claim authority on the 12er position.
Deluded.
And what would be a twelver source?
I don't think that's 100% correct. If one already has a Muslim wife and:
- wants to permanently marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to permanently marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife doesn't consent, this is haram without a doubt.
- wants to temporarily marry and the wife consents, this is forbidden due to obligatory precaution.
This is the way I understood Sistani's fatwa.
The Quran or a hadith from the Imams
Ok, lets start off with the Qoran. What does the Qoran say about Mutah? Well it's obvious that when the Prophetmade Mutah permissible then it must have been fine with Allah and the Qoran which is Allah's words. Now the difference between me and you lies with the Prophet. You believe that the Prophetprohibited Mutah and we believe he didn't. You haven't given me any explanation and reasoning to why the Prophetprohibited it to further the discussion. So this chapter is closed and done with.
Now any Sunni Scholar and what ever they say or have written, or any book written/put together by a Sunni regardless of how authentic it is, would it be reasonable and fair to say it would be part off the Sunni faith and belief? Should I automatically accept everything and anything from any Sunni scholar or book and believe that it is part of the Sunni belief and the view of the entire Sunni community? I am absolutely sure you understand where I am coming from. The same exactly applies to us. I rest this one with you.
Now when it comes to narrations or Hadiths, we do not accept anything and everything put forward to us and labelled by any Shia Imam or even the Prophet. It has to be examined and carefully looked at and the Qoran is the measuring device. Mujtahids, Ayatollahs/Scholars, their Fatwas and statements given need to be carefully understood. And the one who issues the Fatwa or gives the statement can only give a clear explanation and understanding about it. This is the same as narrations and hadiths. Just picking up and taking a hadith/narration/fatwa/statement and giving it your own explanation based on what you have understood has no ground.
There are two things here, Mutah is taboo within the Shia communitiy and Mutah is Mustahab [recomended] in the Jafferi [12r] sect. This is your belief and understanding. Is Mutah really taboo within the Shia communtiy or is it just not commonly and openly practiced? Which is it? Ask the Shias rather than jumping up and down yourself. According to Shia Scholar/s Mutah is Mustahab [recomended], what does this mean and how and in what way? Are there terms and conditions to it or what's the actual story? Ask the Scholars and get a full and up to date explanation and understanding rather than taking things out of context and giving them your own desired understanding and meaning.
Not a single verse from the Quran or a hadith from the Imams.
Just you waffling as usual.
I know this is an extremely lost argument for you.
Trolling now are we.
You claim to follow Quran & Sunnah but can’t provide a single shred of evidence from the Quran or a hadith from your Imams.
Come on iceman. Not even one verse or hadith from the Imams?
Not a single verse from the Quran or a hadith from the Imams.
Just you waffling as usual.
What is it that you want? What are you looking for? The Prophet (s) made Mutah permissible, he allowed it. And surely there must have been a reason and purpose for it. What are you running from? Why are you avoiding this?
I’m not running away. The topic is not whether the Prophet SAW made mutah permissable.
Rather it is mutah & its standing in 12er shi’ism.
You believe mutah is still permissable but only in certain circumstances.
You have failed to provide any hadiths from your Imams to back the latter claim.
Even if we both can say for arguments sake that mutah is permissable & was never banned.
Where is your proof its only permissable in certain extreme circumstances? Which of the 12 Imams said this in your hadiths?
The proof has been established that 12ers believe mutah is a recommended act & is praiseworthy without restricting it to extreme circumstances.
You have failed to provide one single hadith from the Imams to disprove this.
You & some modern shia scholars views that its for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief that is not supported by any hadith from your Imams.
First of all you are among the accusers and you behave as the accused. Secondly the one who accuses should provide evidence and references to back their claim but you expect the accused to provide evidence of their innocence. The headline or title for this thread is, 'IS MUTAH REALLY HALAL FOR SHIA'. You're trying to prove that Mutah is considered halal but when it actually comes to doing it people frown and refrain from it. So therefore it is considered Taboo. I have already addressed this.
Then it has been claimed and you're trying to prove in this thread that according to Shia Scholars Mutah is a very virtuous and praiseworthy act by itself and on its own and is very rewarding like Umrah or Hajj. I have already said that you're taking things out of context and giving it your own desired explanation, understanding and meaning. You haven't provided any clear evidence from Shia Scholars regarding meaning, explanation and understanding about their Fatwas. It has to come from them and not you or anyone else.
I have contributed a lot to this thread, not for you or anyone else but for the audience/viewers who are or will be mislead about my community. Now your points in your present post, yes I most certainly do believe Mutah is permissible and I most certainly stand my ground. But not with arrogance and ignorance but with explanation and reasoning. You want references as evidence from me about my view from a Shia Scholar or one of the Shia Imams. I find this surprising that I give you evidence from a much more higher and superior authority and that is RASULULLAHbut this doesn't satisfy you and doesn't sit well with you, but why?
If there is something clear and direct from the top man RASULULLAHhimself then why should I turn to the Imams or Scholars who are well below and of a much lesser authority? You provide me with evidence that it is not as such. No proof has been established that Mutah is a virtuous and praiseworthy act on its own and by itself and will be highly rewarded like Umrah, Ziyaraath or Hajj according to the 12rs. You're putting forward views of certain Scholars and taking them out of context and giving them your own meaning, explanation and understanding.
By the way you have ended your post well by saying, "you and some modern Shia Scholars view that it's for extreme circumstances is a new modern belief" brother this is exactly what Fiqh is all about. Scholars hold different views be it Shia or Suni. Why take the view that suits you and your purpose and hold the entire Shia community at ransom over and because of that view? The 12r Madhab as you call it doesn't depend on the view of one or some Scholars. This is excatly what i have been trying to explain all along. And the same applies to Sunis.
If something is on offer or on sale or there is a benefit or comfort available/been given then surely and most certainly there will be terms and conditions attached to it and there will be a reason and purpose to it. What world do you guys live in, with adhab. Tell me or give me anything which isn't subject to terms and conditions and which doesn't have a reason and purpose? The Prophetmade Mutah permissible and surely and most certainly there must have been a reason and purpose for it. And we all know by now what that is, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and terms and conditions were attached to it. This is exactly the view of the 12r sect.
We stand firm and united with RASULULLAHand anything and everything that goes against it we do not accept. People have different views and opinion including you and I absolutely and completely understand that.
Whoever says mut'ah is only halal under extreme circumstances is adopting a shadh view which does not represent the sayings of the greats amongst our fuqaha, whether they are dead or alive.
Mut'ah is halal and mustahab in and of itself, and it is a rewarding practice, but in some circumstances it can not be considered recommended. And there are proofs in our books to back that up.
I believe I posted this before, but these are some hadiths which can be used as proof to advise against mut'ah in some cases;
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031609-dr-farrokh-sekaleshfar-slams-mutah-obsessives/?do=findComment&comment=2824204
So you admit you cannot provide anything from your Imams.
You claim you have provided proof from the Prophet SAW. What from sunni sources? Forget sunni sources. They are the followers of muawiya remember.
Where is this proof from the prophet SAW or his ahle bayt from your sources? Nothing in Quran, nothing in your hadith.
You have lost the plot.
You can’t find anything from your hadith books so you follow the sunni hadith books on this matter.
Are you a sunni 12er now?
Iceman what do you have to say about this?
GreatChineseFall, I haven't described this issue as a point of dispute, quite the opposite, as evidenced by my comments under the first quotation box in post #349 on page 18.
Your negation of divorce as disliked was not interpreted by me as a negation in general cases and did indeed appear to reference cases where there was a pressing consideration of some description. My introduction of the principle of the lesser of two evils, as explained in the first paragraph under the second quotation box of post #370 on this current page 19, is a clarification that I have neither misunderstood you nor do I perceive this issue on the whole as one of meaningful dispute for us.
Marriage with intent to divorce, as implied by the better alternative to temporary marriage suggested by you earlier, surely would not constitute an acceptable case for divorce not being disliked, so you have not undermined the viability or practicality of temporary marriage in the original context under discussion.I disagree, it might be disliked from a Sunni perspective(and even then I doubt it would), but for someone who argues that temporary marriage is acceptable, I don't see how marriage with intention of divorce is problematic if disclosed and agreed upon by both partners. Why do you think divorce is disliked in the first place?
It seems you are already familiar with the fatawa of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al Sistani on this subject. You questioned why permanent marriage with Kitabi women should be allowed to a man with a Muslim wife while temporary marriage isn't, despite the fact that neither Ayatollah Sistani nor any other scholar I'm aware of allows this scenario.
However, you qualified your statement with "Nevertheless, what I then don't understand..." which, being interrogative, granted you plausible deniability; so I think this is something we can safely move on from.
When asked in this way, as opposed to the definitive critical statements with which you initiated this line of enquiry, I find myself able to oblige.
Temporary marriage has been defined by Shi'i scholars as being the same as permanent marriage in all areas other than where there's a stipulated difference, such as in fixed duration, maintenance, inheritance and so on (page 495 of the following link). It is therefore appropriate to comprehend the rights of marriage on the whole, and then adjust this where necessary to those areas of specific difference.
In the link these can be found from page 473 through to page 481 and onward, though I would advise reading from page 465:
http://www.english.shirazi.ir/books/Islamic_Law_2013_SecondEdition.pdf
I will also present you with this link, which covers these rights and obligations from a less legalistic and more empathic angle:
https://www.al-islam.org/divine-perspective-on-rights-a-commentary-of-imam-sajjads-treatise-of-rights/right-n-20-right-wife
If you were to add an extra premise it wouldn't be problematic. I'd see your added premise as superfluous rather than incorrect, since if all Muslims agreed on something which wasn't true, it would mean that there aren't any groups or individuals in Islam who are on haqq - which Islam itself contradicts. Thus, the premise would only be needed for non-Muslims, which is superfluous to my aforementioned goal of finding a syllogism which you and I can agree on.It would be as superfluous as adding that Muslims agree on something that is supposed to be true. By the way,it isn't superfluous as only trivial matters shouldn't be stated and it is not as trivial as you may think, even for Muslims, at least not to me. Also, if i dispute the first premise we would have to dissect it anyway as I might only dispute the second part or both parts or just the first part. It is preferable to state premises consisting of a single idea. It is simply unnecessary to do it this way and as I said, it would only complicate matters more.
I agree that leeway must be given in definitions. To clarify, I explained at the outset that my introduction of the word "inherently" was to mitigate the chronological factor in our respective views. You believe that mut'ah was halal in the time of the Holy Prophet(saws) but that it's haram now, thus implying that either the circumstances, or the intrinsic morality of mut'ah itself, have changed.
To speak of "inherent morality" is not to differentiate it from morality sans qualifier, but rather to render the premises impervious to potential claims of a fluid moral substrate. The word "morality" by itself neither necessarily nor colloquially precludes considerations of sanity and circumstance.
Accordingly, "inherently immoral" represents a tautology which is only necessary for those who would, in this instance, assert that mut'ah was changed from halal into haram because its underlying moral nature somehow changed. For those who wouldn't assert this, and I presume you're one of them, "inherently immoral" and "immoral" may be regarded as synonymous.
If our disagreement on the Islamic ruling for the current legality of mut'ah need not correspond to a discrepancy in our views on the nature of mut'ah itself, it leaves you free as a Sunni to refrain from it and hold that it's no longer valid without having to condemn its practice among the Shi'a. It's an open opportunity to find common ground without undermining your own principles, but for reasons I am as yet still trying to discern, you seem resolute on resisting this and criticising mut'ah itself as if it weren't an Islamic teaching, which it indisputably was and arguably still is.
Your rewriting of the above syllogism is not logically required, because what's immoral doesn't necessarily preclude considerations of sanity and circumstance.
So in your first demonstration above, " - If an insane man performs an inherently immoral act it is not immoral", I hold that it wouldn't be valid to consider him a moral agent in the first place if he's truly insane. An insane man, in degree commensurate with that of his insanity, is incapable of performing an act which has a moral dimension to it. A moral or an immoral act generally involves the subject, the predicate and the object, so the states of each of these represent acceptable modifying agents in the concept of morality.
With the premise *All Muslims agree that the Holy Prophet never instructed to anything inherently immoral, this cannot be rendered logically incoherent by a subjective questioning of definitions. You have to demonstrate where there is a clear violation of definitions, or where there is a clear non-sequitur, or where there is a clear false clause, and so on.I didn't question definitions, I said that it's not properly defined. Depending on your definitions, your argument may suffer from equivocation, premise might be false or the conclusion may simply be true by virtue of your definition or other premises, not because of your chosen premises and it would create a false impression if I agreed. So unless you make clear exactly what you mean, it can't even be discussed.
If you're intent on rejecting my proposal for taking this discussion forward, perhaps you have your own suggestions on how this may be best achieved.
Neither of us approve of promiscuity. My opposition to it is that it entails acts done outside of Islamic boundaries; nothing more.Which boundaries?
Your opposition to it appears to be that it entails the access of a man to multiple or impermanent sexual partners; yet this is allowable in Islam regardless of Shi'i - Sunni differences.That is incorrect, so your examples are not relevant.
I repeat that it's not so much your definition at question here as the source of your conceptual outlook, because it's evident that an outlook which attempts to stigmatise a man having numerous or impermanent sexual partners certainly isn't rooted in Islam.That is simply something you assert without proof.
A Roman Catholic who believes that celibacy is an ideal and that "pleasures of the flesh", even within marriage, are fundamentally negative and shameful, might be better qualified to represent the conceptual outlook you seem to have adopted.
In Islam however, where sexual relations with a legitimate partner may be regarded as an act of worship, your outlook appears to be eminently out of place.
Where does your outlook come from?
So you were agreeing with me the whole time? So when you said something like "your example pertains to all muslims so i dont see it as a meaningful dispute and it can in fact be that both options are disliked", what were you responding to and what does example refer to and what do you mean with "both options are disliked"?
I disagree, it might be disliked from a Sunni perspective(and even then I doubt it would), but for someone who argues that temporary marriage is acceptable, I don't see how marriage with intention of divorce is problematic if disclosed and agreed upon by both partners. Why do you think divorce is disliked in the first place?
By the way, there is no intention of divorce in the first place, because it is assumed that it will continue and there is divorce only under certain circumstances. A man may marry a wife who is probably incapable of conceiving and intent on divorcing her if he comes to know that she can't conceive. This is acceptable and there is no intention of divorce in this case, meaning an intention to divorce under almost all possible circumstances
No I am asking you, so if your views do not match Sistani's, I can't judge or criticize your views without knowing them. It would be first of all necessary to know what your views are. This question came out of a earlier question regarding the permissibility of marrying Christians. You said it was allowed (makruh you said, even though that was not exactly correct). Since Sistani ruled that it is haram without a doubt to marry temporarily a wife, not just obligatory precaution, I assumed that this is something most scholars agree upon. If this is incorrect, I would like to see proof.
I don't reject your proposal, I am disagreeing with you. Since you didn't even discuss the second premise, it becomes clear that your argument does not hold
GreatChineseFall, Thank you for your post.
I think we have to identify what you would like to achieve from this dialogue. It’s a dialogue of your own initiation following on from a number of questions you chose to raise.
Your frequent requests for ‘’proof’’ appear to be rhetorical devices rather than genuine requests for elucidation. I say this due to the way you have responded to such evidence when given. For example, at the top of post #235 on page 12, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested in previous posts.
In your response #252 on page 13, you had the decency to say ‘’fair enough’’, yet not without hemming this in with objections in the preceding and succeeding sentences.
Similarly, under the third quotation box in my post #377 on page 19, I provided you with precisely the evidence you had requested about the rights of the wife in temporary marriage. Aside from the considerable time involved in finding suitable evidence to match your specific enquiry, I made the effort to read through it so as to be able to tell you the segments you might want to start reading from.
The two links provided not only contain the requested evidence, but do so from two different angles, one legalistic and the other empathic and philosophical. Your response was to dismiss them both in a few words.
You can call it agreement if you like. I was pointing out that your counter-examples don’t provide any perceivable benefit over the teachings you set out to oppose.
Here you express your various opinions, which is fair enough. However, again, this personal stance of yours has no contradictory value to the teaching of temporary marriage, a teaching which I will continue to remind you is a teaching of the Holy Prophet(saws).
Above are your words, verbatim. You question a teaching which doesn’t in fact exist. It’s clearly a mistake, and since we all make mistakes, shall we move on?Refer to my earlier comment regarding your change of stance regarding what obligatory precaution means where once it "doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"" and later on it is "absolutely forbidden". If I made a mistake, I have no problem admitting it if you admit this mistake is caused by your misinformation, I can hardly be blamed for this.
Here you say the "argument does not hold", whereas in your previous paragraph you say "it can’t even be discussed". I think it’s clear that you will not accept my premises regardless of what they contain, and this itself is why I didn’t "discuss the second premise".
I would've appreciated a considered response from you regarding the overall conceptual outlook behind your views. This discussion being of your own initiation, there is yet one insight I’d hoped to garner from it for my own understanding ...I don't think this is necessary, you have admitted that promiscuity is a transgression of the boundaries of Allah(swt) and I have mentioned this as the reason why people condemn mut'ah. You have not shown how our outlooks differ, rather you have confirmed that they are the same in this regard. The only difference is that you claim that mut'ah is not a license to promiscuity and I believe it is and this is what should be discussed. It is only natural and you should actually admire that I and others take a stand against mut'ah if what we believe is true and consider it a confirmation that our outlooks are not different from what you claim. And if you are a truth seeker and consistent, once you find out that mut'ah with its restrictions and conditions in Shi'i theology is in fact a license to promiscuity you should condemn it as well.
Sunni brothers who try to paint mut’ah as allowing promiscuity and licentiousness are unaware of the realities of the lives of the Anbiyaa(as), in that there’s nothing un-Islamic about a man having halal access to numerous women.Are you implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous? If not, what is the relation between promiscuity and having halal access to numerous women? (I thought you were not going to make my life harder and understood what promiscuity is supposed to mean.)
My goal was clearly laid out from the start of this discussion. The OP stated that the embarrassment of Shi'is regarding mutah is an indication of how immoral they themselves consider it without knowing, a statement I agree with. You attempted to explain this and additionally tried to defend mutah by stating that mutah is not a license to promiscuity. I challenged that statement and above that, I stated that the very fact that you feel compelled to state this is an indication of how embarrassed you are regarding the matter. As I said earlier "A greater sign of insecurity is when people are dishonest about what they believe because they are too embarrassed to openly stand for their beliefs. Why is almost every Shia dishonest about mut'ah?"
This resulted in a discussion regarding a couple of questions that were intended to show that one of the results of mut'ah, with the regulations and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is in fact a license to promiscuity. You chose to respond in a manner that only confirmed what I initially thought, namely you chose time and again to come up with examples that showed that even though the contract is temporary, the intention and the goal in that particular example was to have a permanent relationship. Whether this was mut'ah for the sake of the conversion of a Christian woman (the contract is temporary to give her time to convert, but the intention was to marry her permanently as a Muslim wife) or mut'ah for the sake of "halal dating" (the contract is temporary to give them time to know each other, but the goal was to marry permanently). The very fact that you feel compelled to do it this way, leads me to think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it.
In any case, I think it is beneficial to discuss whether or not the following things are requirements for a valid mut'ah marriage (and yes, also this time evidence is appreciated and yes, also this time the questions are rhetorical as I do not believe them to be requirements nor have I seen evidence to suggest this):
- Is it required for a temporary marriage to form an intention to attempt to establish a relationship that is indefinite or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
- Is it required for a temporary marriage that the partners are committed (in the context of a sexual relationship) towards each other or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
- Is it required for a temporary marriage that there is a fear of falling into sin or, if not, does the absence of this change the status of the marriage to something that is not recommended?
I think these answers will help us in partially answering the question whether or not mut'ah, with the conditions and restrictions in Shi'i theology, is a license to promiscuity or not. I will remind you however that simply shrugging this off by stating that an absence of one of these things causes one to transgress the boundaries of Allah(swt), will not cut it. It is important to prove this claim and show which boundaries exactly we are talking about. (Also a link with with more than a paragraph to read is not appreciated and relevant portions can be quoted as it may turn out to be irrelevant)
I simply stated that I didn't fing anything that I consider relevant and I asked you to quote what was relevant. My dismissal in a few words can be easily addressed and even prevented by quoting a few words. I guess you spent several minutes (at the very least) to find this so spending a few seconds to quote what is relevant shouldn't be a major concern and it would prevent me spending several minutes to read something that may eventually turn out to be not so relevant.
Refer to my earlier comment regarding your change of stance regarding what obligatory precaution means where once it "doesn't necessarily mean "not allowed"" and later on it is "absolutely forbidden". If I made a mistake, I have no problem admitting it if you admit this mistake is caused by your misinformation, I can hardly be blamed for this.
In any case, whether we can move on or not doesn't necessarily depend on this possible mistake. There is difference in ruling between a permanent marriage and a temporary one regardless of what obligatory precaution exactly means. So I can simply ask again:
"‘’What I don't understand if a Christian impinges on "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion" is that a permanent marriage is only not allowed as per obligatory precaution and a temporary marriage is absolutely forbidden without a doubt. So, it is then better to permanently marry such a Christian then to temporarily marry her! How does that make sense if it is against "the inherent rights and dignity of the Muslim wife over the presence of a wife of another religion"?’’"
Again, how can it be an agreement where you quote me saying "It can't be that both options are disliked" and you respond by saying "and it can in fact be that both options are disliked"?
Yes, I point out two problems with your argument, one related to your first premise and the other with your second premise. So to make it even clearer for you to understand, (Assuming the second premise is true), the argument can't even be discussed due to the ambiguity of the first premise and (assuming the first premise is true), the argument does not hold as the second premise was not shown to be true and you chose not to comment further. How is pointing out two problems with two premises proof that unwilling to accept premises regardless what they contain?
And not discussing the second premise because it was clear that I would not accept your premises regardless of what they contain while discussing the first premise doesn't make sense. If that was the case, then there is no point in discussing further the first premise either so in light of that I will maintain that you were simply unable to prove the second premise as the reason why you didn't discuss it anymore.
Please keep track of what is being discussed. This wasn't about what is wrong with temporary marriage, this was about the question how temporary marriage is a better alternative to a permanent marriage and planning a divorce. You can claim it is better and I can claim it is not which is indeed an opinion of both you and me. However, claiming that the reason for it being better is because the latter may force you to do something that is disliked, ie divorce, is something that can be discussed whether or not is factually correct. I have shown you that divorce is not disliked with a legitimate reason. You have yet to show why this will not apply.
As for what the Prophet(saws) taught, the rules and regulations is what makes a practice worthy condemnation and since I do not believe that the Prophet taught the same sules with the same restrictions as Shi'i scholars do, this statement is simply irrelevant. Ibn 'Abbas might have been able to say this, Shi'is on the other hand, unfortunately not.
I don't think this is necessary, you have admitted that promiscuity is a transgression of the boundaries of Allah(swt) and I have mentioned this as the reason why people condemn mut'ah. You have not shown how our outlooks differ, rather you have confirmed that they are the same in this regard. The only difference is that you claim that mut'ah is not a license to promiscuity and I believe it is and this is what should be discussed. It is only natural and you should actually admire that I and others take a stand against mut'ah if what we believe is true and consider it a confirmation that our outlooks are not different from what you claim. And if you are a truth seeker and consistent, once you find out that mut'ah with its restrictions and conditions in Shi'i theology is in fact a license to promiscuity you should condemn it as well.
Are you implying that the Prophets(as) were promiscuous? If not, what is the relation between promiscuity and having halal access to numerous women? (I thought you were not going to make my life harder and understood what promiscuity is supposed to mean.)
I have touched on the subject of embarrassment before (I will not number the relevant posts, since your reply has been less argumentative in spirit, thus enabling me to respond without the burden of excessive formality) and I will further clarify.
First of all I will say that I've noticed that you have personality traits which seem fairly different from my own, so I feel this precludes the possibility of your being able to say of me that you "think that you yourself are embarrassed without realizing it."
Such an observation may well involve self-projection on your behalf and assumes that you've been able to successfully figure out that aspect of my character. I would advise you that this is not so.
It's actually quite an accomplishment within a friendship when individuals reach the level where they've developed an intuitive perspicacity for the other's mental moorings; it's unrealistic to think that this would be replicated here.
We all have life experiences which may affect us deeply but which we're unable to communicate effectively to other people.
This is partly what I referred to several posts back when I spoke of how the feeling of being misunderstood is common during debates due to the inability of prosaic expression to encapsulate the myriad thoughts, feelings and experiences of the individual interlocutors.
I can assure you that you have not seen all there is to see, as is true for us all.
May we all take this into account when considering the level of confidence we have in our opinions on matters in which there's much new understanding still awaiting us.
The OP's original question is a perceptive one, since it touches on something many Shi'a themselves find mystifying, namely the existence of negative attitudes within the community to something which is permitted and recommended.
Suffice to say I'm not embarrassed by this subject as can be inferred by my willingness to discuss it, though since others are, I have to navigate through the common concerns of the prevailing milieu.
Embarrassment is a sentiment many of us feel in relation to anything sexual and potentially anything corporeal.
This sentiment may often lead us to withdraw from things which are completely acceptable and halal and I gave the example of celibacy and monasticism in Christianity.
Other examples may include the stigma within the wider Muslim world that a man should marry more than one wife, or the question of sexual relations with ma malakat aymanukum.
Within the wider social sphere, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, we find that there are wives who feel shy and uncomfortable engaging sexually with their own husbands - a common reason cited by men who have extra-marital affairs.
This aspect of human nature is well-recognised and so it's not surprising that we find it in the Shi'a community in relation to mut'ah.
I will indeed, as you have kindly permitted, treat your three questions above as rhetorical. This is not only because I believe you're familiar enough with Shi'a sources to derive the answers yourself, but because I believe you already know the answers.
I have already referred the function of mut'ah whereby it's a facility for diverse situations, contingencies and exigencies and whereby it's a generous provision we should be thankful for. This is not something we need be embarrassed by nor is it a licence to promiscuity.
I appreciate your introduction of these three questions as means for resolution, though I believe, based on my deliberations on the last few exchanges, that resolution has largely been achieved and that there are superficial factors extending this dialogue. In a different environment or on a different site, I believe we would have found happier grounds for progress.
You seem to be unaware that to demand "proof" or "evidence" is to introduce a formality. It means that what's provided as evidence must be of a scholarly standard, it must be relevant, it must be thorough and it must be comprehensive, among other things. The failure to meet any one of these criteria will leave the evidence open to being branded as weak or insufficient.
For you to make frequent demands for evidence (in many cases about things which it seems you already know) but to then object to the extensive nature of the evidence provided, is not what I would consider to be a reasonable attitude, though I don't find this reflective of your attitude on the whole, which I find admirable.
The provided links were fully and directly relevant to your enquiry and if you don't want to take the time to read through the kind of material I'm compelled to present, please don't request it.
I certainly did not change my stance and your assertion to the contrary is errant. I clearly put "absolutely forbidden" in inverted commas and did so since they were your own words I was quoting back to you. For you to claim that your own quoted words have somehow become my own views on account of my having quoted them is incomprehensible, especially since their inaccuracy is the very reason I quoted them in inverted commas to begin with.
This is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to when I said that the multiple quotation box format has the capacity to generate more heat than light. I'm very conscientious of what I say and I'm sure you have the best of intentions, so please be more careful.
This is where I introduced the principle of the lesser of two evils and showed its validity according to your own Sunni interpretation of Islam; thus I'm affirming that we hold this principle in common.It does not make sense to me to explicitly negate what was said previously because of a mere semantic difference, perhaps that was not an apt choice of words. It also does not make sense to me to describe something as a false dilemma by mentioning a third option, creating the impression that if there is no third option, it would be a true dilemma.
Our "dispute" here was revealed to be semantic differences rather than divergent views, since your "It can't be that both options are disliked" doesn't appear to be an apt choice of words for someone who recognises the principle of the lesser of two evils.
Is this kind of dispute of any help or benefit to anyone? Shall we move on?
You didn't "point out" anything but rather you voiced subjective objections to my premises which showed why they should, for you, preferentially be changed.
You did not find ways in which they must necessarily be changed, which would have been required of you were your objections to have been binding.
Latterly, you questioned my use of the word "inherently" which I then spent several paragraphs clarifying, though this seemed to remain a stumbling block for us.
Ultimately you didn't accept what I introduced as a means to bring about an amicable resolution, which was perhaps of more significance in itself than anything discussed.
I will endeavour to keep track, as I'm sure you will too. It remains to be seen that marrying while "planning a divorce" could constitute a viable example of divorce not being disliked, though I will not require you to prove this.
It also remains to be proven that mut'ah in the time of the Holy Prophet(saws) was different from what is taught by Shi'a scholars, though again this proof is not something I require to be forthcoming from you, since I have stated my intention to focus on what I see as the core issues under discussion.
It seems we have genuinely different understandings of "promiscuity", not so much in definition perhaps as in the extent to which its pejorative connotations overlap with Islamic marital concepts. This is the part of our discussion I'd like us to focus on, if you'd be so kind.
Since a man having numerous sexual partners is evidently not unacceptable in Islam, the pejorative word "promiscuity" has no application here. It can only apply to those engaging in relations outside of Islamic boundaries.
A chief difference is that outside Islamic boundaries, there are no pertaining rights, considerations or obligations which must be observed. Inside Islamic boundaries, be it temporary marriage, permanent marriage or relations with ma malakat aymanukum, there are always rights, considerations and obligations which must be observed.
This for me is what marks the boundary between halal sexual relations and "promiscuity". Promiscuity isn't merely about a man having numerous partners, since this is clearly halal in Islam and has been practiced and exemplified by the Anbiyaa(as). Rather, promiscuity is about people engaging in sexual relations outside of the boundaries laid down by Allah(swt).
Now we come to your own definition and your objections to mut'ah. It can hardly be imagined that you're merely objecting because you don't see mut'ah as being halal, since we've both known this since the beginning of the discussion and so there would've been nothing to discuss.
Therefore, if your objection to mut'ah derives from an underlying Islamic principle you believe mut'ah violates, what is it? Do you object to mut'ah in principle because you feel it's wrong in itself that a man can have access to numerous women? Is this your "promiscuity"?
If so then as stated, your objection is disqualified by the examples of the Anbiyaa(as) and by your own Sunni Caliphs. It means you have introduced a puritanical ethic which is not part of Islam.
Can you demonstrate an underlying Islamic principle which mut'ah violates? If not, then why not do as I've suggested: simply refrain from mut'ah yourself if you don't believe it's halal, rather than trying to question the morality of a known and recognised teaching of the Holy Prophet(saws).