As you are both stupid and autistic, I will try to write in simple English.
As for Mauwiyah`s mutah,I never said that the Hadith is sahi and I also don’t believe the crap about Omar.BUT THE PART ABOUT MAWIYAH CONTRACTING MUTAH IS SAHI AND THIS IS ALO ADMITED IN THE LINK YOU PROVISED
وأما معاوية فأخرجه عبد الرزاق من طريق صفوان بن يعلى بن أمية ، أخبرني يعلى أن معاوية استمتع بامرأة بالطائف ، وإسناده صحيح
As far as mauwiyah is concerned, Abdul Razaq report with safwan sanad that mauwiyah contracted Mutah and the sanad is sahi/
ح/شیخ ابن باز انے فتاوی، جلد ۲۰، صفحہ ۳۷۸
Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote,
Mu'awiya contracted Mut'ah with a woman from Ta'if and this narration carries a sahih chain.
When Mu'awiya arrived in Ta'if, he performed Mut'ah with an unnamed slave belonging to Banu Hazrmee called Ma'ana, Jabir states that remained alive throughout Mu'awiya's reign, and he gave her yearly stipends every year./ Fath al-Bari, Volume 9 pages 143-144
Now let me show you why I called you a stupid. The reason is that you pick and choose from my answers as per your desire. Again this time also, you left the main part of my answer which answered the main argument, and went for side issues, Like I myself said that lets assumed that hadeeth is authentic and then I answered your claim. Let me quote it again, so that readers can see your idiocy.
I SAID:
But for arguments sake, lets say that it is authentic, even then the narration of Abd Al-Razaq in his Musanaf #14026 suggests that Mu’awiyah performed mutah during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him. Like Jabir, Amr bin Huraith, and others, it seems that he was not aware that mutah was prohibited by the Prophet – peace be upon him. Since, Muawiyah(ra) accepted Islam openly after conquest of Makkah then its seems to be most likely that he wasn't aware of the ruling Mutah being prohibited. And it is an agreed upon principle that, the personal actions of a companion of the Prophet – peace be upon him – cannot be used to legalize an act if there is clear evidence of prohibition.
I must remind your minuscule brain that we were not debating in this hadith,the permissability.But you were falsely stating that mutah was only allowed in jihad and hard situation. But I showed you that sahaba contracted Mutah in peacetime. We can say that a sahabi has never heard about the prohibition but this is a great disrespect to sahaba to say that they heard that Mutah is only allowed in Jihad and went against the words of Prophet.
Again, your display of lack of understanding. In my response, I said that Muawiya(RA) was NOT aware of the prohibition of Mutah, nor was he aware of its allowance, because Mutah was banned till Qiyamah at the conquest of Makkah, and the same time Muawiya(ra) became Muslim, so its not possible that, he would know each and every ruling of Islam at the same time, since mutah was practiced by the Makkans since pre-Islamic times, hence he was not aware of its prohibition, this is what I mentioned in the previous response.
Who told you that Muawiya(ra) knew the command of Prophet(SAWS) about Mutah? Be it allowance, or prohibition? From where did you get this? Or was it the output of your corrupt brain?
In the Hadith quoted by you
حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عَوْنٍ، حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدٌ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، عَنْ قَيْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَلَيْسَ مَعَنَا نِسَاءٌ فَقُلْنَا أَلاَ نَخْتَصِي فَنَهَانَا عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَرَخَّصَ لَنَا بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ بِالثَّوْبِ، ثُمَّ قَرَأَ {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لاَ تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ }
There is no mention that Mutah is only allowed in Jihad.
Do you agree that Mutah was allowed ONLY in the time of NECESSITY OR NOT?
If not. Then see this evidence:
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).[Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Hadith 32]
So here we find one more Sahabi affirming the fact that it was allowed when there was necessity during the time of Prophet(SAWS).
Al Hazmi is a takfeeri, and it is clear Hazimi did make Takfir of al-Sheikh al-Muhaddith Sulayman al-Alwan so his opinion doesn’t count.
JAHIL!Al Hazimi is Al-Hafidh Muhammad ibn Musa ibn 'Uthman al-Hazimi ash-Shafii (Born in 548- Died in 584) also known as Abu bakr al-hazimi , his book which I quoted is Al-I'tibaar fin-Naasikh wal-Mansookh fil-Hadeeth.
Tell me Ya Jahil, How can a scholar who died in 584 AH, make takfeer of a scholar who was born in 1389 AH?
Go and get your brain treated first, before making retarded arguments. The great scholar , Hafidh , pious and Muhaddith , Abu Bakr al- Hazimi, his explanation remains rock solid and will be used by people of Sunnah, even though his view may become thorn in the eye of Juhla.
What is the dalil that marrying with the intention of divorce is deceit? If you ask any person that if he will divorce his wife if she is dishonest and he will answer yes. So every persons harbor secret intents for divorce. But is it written in Quran or any Hadith that marrying with intent of divorce is a sin? And you completely avoid the verdict of Bin Baz and produce some fiqh council.
Moron, when say IF then there is no certainity, its is conditional and that is perfectly valid reason. However in the issue marriage with intention of divorce, it is intentional. And as I said before since you have poor understanding skills you didn't get what i explained. As for Bin Baaz then his opinion was considered Shaadh and he was wrong in his view, and was criticized by the scholars, and we know he was not Masoom(infallible). His Shaadh view is left and the view of the majority of scholars is taken. For details on this issue read these articles:
http://www.chiite.fr/en/mutah_17.htmlhttps://followingthesunnah.com/2014/04/18/getting-married-with-the-intention-of-divorce/Because in your stupid brain, you cannt understand that hajj e tammatu was prohibited by Umar and the hadith mentions the prohibition by both umar and ABUBAKR, so it can only mean muttah
Arrogant Jahil, Why would people quote Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar(ra) when trying to stop Ibn Abbas from Mutah al-Nisa, because Mutah an-Nisa was prohibited by Prophet(Saws)? They would directly quote Hadeeth of Prophet(saws) like how Ali(ra) did.
Narrated `Ali: I said to Ibn `Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."[Sahih al-Bukhari 5115].
This is a proof that the reports you are quoting are regarding Mutah al-hajj.
Also the Scholars of Ahlus-sunnah have explained it has Mutah al Hajj, check out this example:
قال المصنف رحمه الله تعالى: [وقال ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما: (يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء أقول: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتقولون: قال أبو بكر و عمر !)] قال ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما هذا الكلام بمناسبة أنه كان يأمر ب
المتعة -متعة الحج- ويقول إنها أفضل؛
http://www.islamport.com/w/aqd/Web/1762/1336.htmAnother example is the book (Manasik al-Hajj wal Umrah, page 153 and 154)مناسك الحج والعمرة
https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=2OtHCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnother evidence that those reports are not regarding Mutah al-Hajj is that,
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 (ﷺ) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith. [Sahih Muslim 1405]
Jabir(ra) who was NOT AWARE that Mutah was prohibited by prophet(saws), until the time of Umar(ra), if Abu bakr(ra) would have forbade Mutah, then he would have said, that Abu bakr forbade Mutah, but he didn't, this is another proof that those reports are regarding Mutah al hajj.
BOTH OF US AGREE THAT THE FATWA OF IBN ABBAS IS WRONG AND I HAVE SHOWED THAT ZUBAIR THREATENS IBN ABBAS WITH RAJM FOR IT.THE CONDITIONAL OR NOT DEBATE IS ACADEMIC.I HAVE SHOWN YOU THE OPINION OF MANY SCHOLARS THAT THIS FATWA IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA.SO REMAIN HAPPY IN YOUR BUBBLE OF CONDITIONAL FATWA AS MOST SCHOLARS ARE AGAINST IT.
Anyone who reads the discussion will clearly see that your arguments were destroyed. You were left humiliated due to your Jahl and stupidity and lies, by lies I mean the lie you made that No one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa, and this lie was exposed badly.
As for the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas being conditional then this Sahih Hadeeth proving his Fatwa was conditional is a slap on your face.
5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”
قال أبو بكر الإسماعيلي في المستخرج: أنبأ يوسف القاضي: ثنا عمرو بن مرزوق: أنبأ شعبة، عن أبي جمرة، عن ابن عباس: أنه سُئِلَ عن متعة النساء، فقال مولى له: إنما كان ذلك في الجهاد والنساء قليل؟!. قال: فقال ابن عباس: صدق
Abu Bakr al-Isma`ilee in his Mustakhraj: Yusuf al-Qadi told, `Amro bin Marzuq told us, Shu`bah told us, from abi Hamzah, from ibn `Abbas (ra): That he was asked about the Mut`ah of women, so a Mawla of his asked him: "It is only in Jihad and women are few!?" ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "That's true."
Grading: Sahih.
22 Replies
5272 Views
May 23, 2015, 12:06:11 AM