Is Mutah Really Halal For Shia?

[Optimus Prime]

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.

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Search the forum. There are quotes from your own scholars who're quoting narrations from your own books.

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 .

[Optimus Prime]

please keep the discussion civil brother. No need to use words like accursed sect. Please refrain from using such words in future posts .

I'm sorry, if I disturbed the flow of the discussion brother.

I won't comment further. In my view it's futile to engage in dialogue with people of this ilk.

[Ibrahim]

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.

You've misunderstood what I mean by "consensus". It's a way of saying that where there isn't necessarily a contradiction, there's no need to look for a dispute.

Forging good relations between Shia and Sunni means finding common ground. I discuss Shia-Sunni issues with the intention of dispelling misconceptions and promoting unity. Where common ground is available, it should be built upon.

To my knowledge, Sunni scholars have variously considered Imam Ali(as), Abu Bakr, 'Umar or even 'Uthman to each have held the highest position among the sahaaba, with no universal consensus on Abu Bakr.
If you have evidence of the unanimous opinion of Abu Bakr's pre-eminence, among all Sunni scholars past and present, then please make it available and we can discuss from there.

Otherwise, the point still stands; that Sunni scholarship itself is not necessarily in disagreement on the aforementioned reasons as to why Shia Muslims do not accept the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar.

Many Sunni scholars in fact are of the opinion that the Holy Prophet(saws) didn't nominate any successor at all, that he didn't select Abu Bakr, 'Umar or anyone else. Why object to Shia claiming that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were not given authority to rule by Allah(swt) and His Messenger(saws), when that is essentially the same as the position many Sunni scholars hold?

I have responded so as not to neglect your point but I appreciate that, as you said, we are off topic here. Again, I'll reiterate that I'm trying to show why the Shia position is a reasonable one and that it isn't necessarily at odds with Sunni scholarship on a number of key issues.

[Ibrahim]

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.

The concept of calling hadith collections "Sahih" or "the most authentic book after the book of Allah" is a Sunni scholarly tradition, not a Shia one. Shia scholarship accepts that there may be inauthentic hadith in Kitab al Kafi or any other hadith book, and these inauthentic ahadith are assessed and rejected.

I will give you an example of this from the books of Ahl as-Sunnah in order to clarify:

There is a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, one of the Sunni "Al Sihah Al Sittah", that a part of the Holy Qur'an was permanently lost due to a sheet it was written on being eaten by a goat (na'udhubillah).
Does this therefore mean that Sunni Muslims consider the Holy Qur'an to be incomplete? Not at all; rather it means that the hadith in question is rejected outright.

You question if marrying and divorcing frequently should be considered a slur against Imam Hassan's(as) honourable position. How can it not be?

Remember that this slanderous material alleges the number of these wives at anywhere between 70 and 300, and that they were married and divorced frivolously and according to whim. Apart from the logical and logistical impossibility of such allegations, they portray Imam Hassan's(as) character in an undignified way which is completely the opposite of his known personality.

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?

If you want to preserve your own integrity, I strongly suggest you stay away from spreading false rumours about the household of the Holy Prophet (saws).

[Ibrahim]

A couple of the brothers here have objected to the comparison of Shia mut'ah marriage with Sunni misyar and 'Urfi marriage.

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.

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.

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?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

And secondly Akhbari Shia scholars such as hurr amili, etc consider hadees in al-kafi as authentic. Hence by your ignorance based argument they all went against the word of Prophet(saws) that Imam Hassan(ra) is sayyid shabab ahl al Jannah.

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).

And for us Sunnis, Imam Hassan(ra) will still be sayyid shabaan ahl al jannah even if married and divorced several women.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Some points:

1) shia always use kop outs to get of situations by saying the narration was taqiyya or its rejected because erm well you don’t like it & hence you’ve decided its not authentic on that basis

2) please show me where any sunni narrations regarding a sheet containing verses of the quran mean them verses were lost forever?

3) in regards to mutah then rather than slate it, i’m more curious as to why shia insist it was umar who banned it when the overwhelming evidence shows that Ali ibn Abu Talib, Zayd ibn Ali ibn Husayn, Mohammed ibn Ali & Jafar ibn Mohammed all agreed it was banned.

[Ibrahim]

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'm reassured to hear of your objection to the earlier comment.

Again, we're off topic but I'll briefly address some points you raised.

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.

As for my "agenda" - yes I do have an agenda: it's to see the Muslim Ummah in a state of revival and amelioration, and this won't happen by promoting sectarianism and internal division.

Regarding "shirk" in the shrines in Karbala, when I was there I didn't see any shirk. I saw people showing love and respect for Imam Hussein(as) and the martyrs of Ashura, and then turning to the qibla and praying to Allah(swt) when the prayer time came.

If you think there might be shirk taking place, why not go to Karbala, or to Mashhad, and check for yourself?

[Rationalist]

I
Regarding Shia slander the first 3 Sunni Caliphs, this is unacceptable when it occurs and is widely denounced by Shia scholars.

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?

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.

This is a very similar reply the Jews gave when asked about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). One  Jew in the end was about to say something, but his wife told him to do taqiyyah.

[Hadrami]

A couple of the brothers here have objected to the comparison of Shia mut'ah marriage with Sunni misyar and 'Urfi marriage.

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.

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.

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.

PS: everyone else, pls stay on topic. Shia are trying to derail so many times

[Ibrahim]

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.

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? Need I remind you what the Holy Qur'an says about backbiting:

يَا أيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ وَلَآ تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَآ يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا أيُحِبُّ أحَدُكُمْ أن يَأكُلَ لَحْمَ أخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ

O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion. Indeed some suspicions are sins. And spy not [on others], neither backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? By no means, [since] you would hate it. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 49:12).

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?

In the time it took you to comment, you could have done a hundred other useful things with your time. Why not find a more constructive activity than casting aspersions on the character of Imam Hassan(as)?
The one who, when he would climb on the Holy Prophet's(saws) back while he was in sajda, the Holy Prophet(saws) would wait for him to finish before rising.

[Ibrahim]

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?

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 principles of Tawalla and Tabarra aren't relevant here and neither is your allusion to taqiyyah.
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.

[MuslimK]

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.

What is your scholarly consesus about the marriages of Hasan?

Your rejection of this fact about the marriages of Hassan (ra) is not academic but emotional.

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.

Just to clarify. The report is weak thus not an evidence. The verses were abrogated verses so it doesn't matter who ate it. Quran was memorised by hundreds of companions so even if it was non-abrogated verse then it still wouldn't be a problem. You should study the history of Quranic compilation.

especially since Allama Majlisi's primary aim was to collect available hadith rather than to authenticate them.

Are you sure? From where did you get this claim? Miratul Uqool is a book in which Majlisi grades all Hadiths of al-Kafi.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Shia scholar Yusuf Bahrani said:

بقي هنا إشكال وهو أنه قد تكاثرت الأخبار بأن الحسن (عليه السلام) كان رجلا مطلاقا للنساء حتى عطب به أبوه علي (عليه السلام) على ظهر المنبر
The problem that remains is that ahadith have been reported in extremely vast numbers that Imam al Hasan (as) was a man who used to frequently divorce women, to the point that even his own father Imam Ali (as) blasted him for this publicly from the top of the pulpit. [Hadaiq al Nadra by Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani, Volume 25 Page 148]

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.

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),

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.

Where as the hadeeth about Marriages of hasan(ra) has been accepted by Shia scholars like, Majlisi , Yusuf bahrani, etc. hence according to your ignorance they insulted Hasan(ra).

especially since Allama Majlisi's primary aim was to collect available hadith rather than to authenticate them.

Again displaying your ignorance(jahalah). majlisi wrote his book to evaluate the hadeeths in al-kafi.

Mir'aat Al-`Uqool by Al-Majlisi is a book where Al-Majlisi grades EVERY single hadeeth in Al-Kaafi. So it includes all the SaHeeH, Muwaththaq, Hasan, and Da`eef hadeeth.

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 ?

If they did then do you reject their scholarship?

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 .

[Ibrahim]

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.

To reiterate: I'm not trying to scandalise Sunnis for misyar and 'urfi; I realise that it's an inevitable response to a social need. Likewise, Sunnis should stop the immature and irresponsible attempts to scandalise Shia for mut'ah.

It just ends up making all Muslims look bad if we do that.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

The brother mentioned about marriage with intention of divorce. You brought the article of Misyar. Misyar is not marriage with intention of Divorce. So this again displays your ignorance.

Misyar is a marriage where a women drops her right over her husband. Such as financial responsibility of husband. If a women who has money but is finding difficult to marry a person who is poor and can't afford her expenses, then she can opt to drop her right by lifting her responsibility from the person whom she want to marry. It's quite simple.

It's better that you discuss these things when you gain some basic knowledge and maturity.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

A couple of the brothers here have objected to the comparison of Shia mut'ah marriage with Sunni misyar and 'Urfi marriage.

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.

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.

[Ibrahim]

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.

The number of his divorces may not be certain but what is proven from reliable(muwathaq) Shia hadeeth is that...

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

I have proven all my points in an academic manner, aling with quotations from Shia books. I have shown you that Shia scholars accepted that hadeeth, explained it as well.  If you want to blame anyone, then blame those Shia scholars who explained it and graded it as reliable. And your rejection is based on emotions and ignorance.

And btw calling an ignorant person ignorant on his face is not wrong. Especially when his ignorance is being proven. He is reminded that he is ignorant because he starts educating himself.