Print Page | Close Window

temporary marriage/mut`a

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13439
Printed Date: 17 December 2024 at 10:54pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: temporary marriage/mut`a
Posted By: sabah08
Subject: temporary marriage/mut`a
Date Posted: 27 October 2008 at 5:08pm
The issue of temporary marriage is controversial in Islam. Shi`is believe mut`a is halal and Sunnis believe it is haram. How can people who attest to the same religion differ so intensively about one subject? 



Replies:
Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 29 October 2008 at 1:37am
You seem to be a muslim, by your name. What do you say of it now ? There are few elements in our society who under the label of Islam, create there own understandings and depict themselves as Muslims. What cud we do !

-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 30 October 2008 at 2:46pm
If Shi'is believe 4:24 discusses temporary marriage, and Sunnis don't, aren't both acts of interpretation? How does one deem they are correct and the other as incorrect?
 
If the Shi`a interpret the word istamta` (mut`a - pleasure), to signify temporary marriage in 4:24:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. - Pickthall
 
and Sunnis interpret the verse as permanent marriage, how do we know who is entirely correct?
 


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 31 October 2008 at 11:10pm
You did not let me know, what do you believe in ?
 
 
It was narrated from �Ali that he heard Ibn �Abbaas permitting mut�ah marriage, and he said, �Wait a minute, O Ibn �Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.�

This hadith is from sahih Muslim.

It was narrated from al-Rabee� ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, �O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut�ah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut�ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.�

Even this hadith is from Sahih Muslim.

This kind of marriage was permitted in those days of conquest of Makkah and later that was because at that time there were so many people who has newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to committing zinaa during the Jaahiliyyah. So this kind of marriage was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection, as was narrated by Muslim.

Sunnis, follow the interpretations made by sunni scholars. If you are a sunni you can go by it.You have sahih hadiths above as a reminder as well.

Well, now that you know both interpretations, which one do you feel is correct. Ask this question sincerly to yourselves and you shall get the answer. Will a girl ever give her consent for such marriages ?
 
 


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 06 November 2008 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by seekshidayath seekshidayath wrote:

You did not let me know, what do you believe in ?
 
 
It was narrated from �Ali that he heard Ibn �Abbaas permitting mut�ah marriage, and he said, �Wait a minute, O Ibn �Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.�

This hadith is from sahih Muslim.

It was narrated from al-Rabee� ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, �O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut�ah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut�ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.�

Even this hadith is from Sahih Muslim.

This kind of marriage was permitted in those days of conquest of Makkah and later that was because at that time there were so many people who has newly embraced Islam and there was the fear that they might become apostates, because they had been used to committing zinaa during the Jaahiliyyah. So this kind of marriage was permitted for them for three days, then it was made haraam until the Day of Resurrection, as was narrated by Muslim.

Sunnis, follow the interpretations made by sunni scholars. If you are a sunni you can go by it.You have sahih hadiths above as a reminder as well.

Well, now that you know both interpretations, which one do you feel is correct. Ask this question sincerly to yourselves and you shall get the answer. Will a girl ever give her consent for such marriages ?
 
 
 

Many renowned Shi'i ulama such as Shayk al-Tusi, consider this saying authentic but maintain that Ali was practicing dissimilation (taqiyya) when it was uttered. Since all Muslims agree that mut'a was permitted in the year Mecca was conquered, Ali could not have claimed that mut'a was banned on the Day of Khaybar which was three years prior to Mecca�s conquest.

 
Although the hadith related by ibn Sabra has been related by many chains of transmitters (isnads), the prominent Shi'i scholar Khu'i points out that they all go back to ibn Sabra himself. Thus, this hadith is known as wahid - deriving from a single Companion. Also, a Qur'anic verse cannot be altered by a strong hadith let alone one that is wahid. According to Shi'is, both of these verses although sahih, do not alter verse 4:24 which sanctifies mut`a.
 
 
Actually, mut'a is a pre-Islamic custom practiced by the Arabs.
 
Since there are valid arguments and counterarguments; both sides have merit.
 
The women who enter mut'a marriages are faced with a cultural ambivalence; a mut'a wife has less rights and responsibilities towards her husband and intimacy between them is legitimated for a temporary period.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 10 December 2008 at 3:21am
Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:

[/QUOTE

Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmizy]

As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.

It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfillment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honored. So temporary marriage was forbidden.



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 11 December 2008 at 2:12am

Temporary Marriage seems to me a 'legalised' form of prostitution . . .



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 11 December 2008 at 7:33am
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Temporary Marriage seems to me a 'legalised' form of prostitution . . .



No forbidden act can have a "legalised" form.

Temporary marriage was prevalant in Arabia in the early days of Islam until a ban was imposed on that.


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 11 December 2008 at 8:27pm
Originally posted by abosait abosait wrote:

Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:

Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmizy]

As temporary marriage was a custom amongst Arabs in the days of ignorance, it would not have been wise to forbid it except gradually, as is the manner of Islam in removing pre-Islamic customs which were contrary to the interests of people.

It is well established that temporary marriage does not agree with the interests of people because it causes loss to the offspring, uses women for fulfillment of the lusts of men, and belittles the value of a woman whom Allah has honored. So temporary marriage was forbidden.

 
 
What would have been contrary to the interest of the people banning temporary marriage at the start of Islam? Why should mut`a be banned gradually; weren't certain pre-Islamic marriage and inheritance laws changed/banned completely at the beginning of Islam?
 
Shi'a quote other tafsirs such as al-Khui which point to the Prophet allowing mut`a and Umar banning it.    Al-Tusi discusses how the word istamtia in 4:24  refers to a marriage of a temporary contract,  hence mut`a.   
 
Children born form a mut`a contract are legitimate and they inherit from their parents. (1/2 the amount from their father than any children born in a permanent marriage and same amount from mother as permanent marriage children) 
 
As no witnesses or guardians are needed, a woman contracts a mut`a marriage independently; mut'a marriages are for the fulfillment of female sexual desire as well.  Why would the Prophet allow a practice that belittles women?


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 11 December 2008 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Temporary Marriage seems to me a 'legalised' form of prostitution . . .

 
 
 
According to Shi'i ulama, temporary marriage is the answer in preventing prostitution.    
 
If sura 4:24 legitimizes mut'a and the Prophet allowed it,  then it is a religiously and legally permissible way for a man and woman to fulfill sexual desire.  In this light, mut'a would be the answer to prevent zina and prostitution.     


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 11 December 2008 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by abosait abosait wrote:

Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Temporary Marriage seems to me a 'legalised' form of prostitution . . .



No forbidden act can have a "legalised" form.

Temporary marriage was prevalant in Arabia in the early days of Islam until a ban was imposed on that.
 
 
According to Shi'i Islam, mut`a is not forbidden.
 
How could Umar have the right to ban a practice legitimated by the Qur'an and allowed by the Prophet? Can hadith abrogate the Qur'an?


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 12 December 2008 at 8:15pm
Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:

Originally posted by abosait abosait wrote:

Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

Temporary Marriage seems to me a 'legalised' form of prostitution . . .



No forbidden act can have a "legalised" form.

Temporary marriage was prevalant in Arabia in the early days of Islam until a ban was imposed on that.
 
 
According to Shi'i Islam, mut`a is not forbidden.
 
How could Umar have the right to ban a practice legitimated by the Qur'an and allowed by the Prophet? Can hadith abrogate the Qur'an?

If you want to do a Muta who is stopping you? Shiism is a parallel sect created by the Jew Hasan bin sabah;
 Let me show you what fitna have they started at Karbala:
http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k8_news/dec/9arafah_day_karbala.htm - Arafah Day observed at Husseini shrine
A hadith, or a saying, of Prophet Muhammad (peace of Allah be on him and his pure progeny) goes that Allah certainly looks at the visitors of Hussein in Karbala http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k8_news/dec/9arafah_day_karbala.htm -


Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 13 December 2008 at 6:15am
Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:



.......................mut'a would be the answer to prevent zina and prostitution.     


Changinging the name of the same act does not make it legal.



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 14 December 2008 at 8:19am
Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:

 
According to Shi'i ulama, temporary marriage is the answer in preventing prostitution.    
 
 
The first part says it all, (in bold) i.e. it is the opinion of a fraction of 'muslims' . . . does not mean it is Islam's stance as well.
 
Just because they claim such a thing, does not necessarily make it true. Once Prophet Muhammad banned a certain practise, it is Haraam for muslims and not to be acted out.
 
Quote
If sura 4:24 legitimizes mut'a and the Prophet allowed it,  then it is a religiously and legally permissible way for a man and woman to fulfill sexual desire.  In this light, mut'a would be the answer to prevent zina and prostitution.     
 
Surah 4:24 talks about regular, normal 'Marriage' , it does not talk about Mutaah. Heres the translation for other readers' benefit:
 
"And whoever among you cannot (find) the means to marry free, believing women, then (he may marry) from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You (believers) are of one another. So marry them with the permission of thier people and give them their due compensation to what is acceptable.[They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit inlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." - 4:24
 
One cannot play with words and say that when Allah talked about Marriage here, He was referring to a 'temporary' marriage as well. . . Allah makes His commandments clear.
 
In the very next verse, Allah says : "Allah wants to make clear to you [the lawful from the unlawful] and guide you to the [good] practices of those before you and to accept your repentance. And Allah is Knowing and Wise" - 4:25   . . . . which means, had a 'temporary' marriage been permissable, Allah would have made it clear.
 
The Prophet clearly banned the practise, which means it is Haraam, and not permissable.
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 14 December 2008 at 8:26am

Quote
 
 Can hadith abrogate the Qur'an?
 
No it cannot. Sahih Hadith and Qur'an are complementary to each other, and one needs to be referred to, in order to understand the other better.
 
Also, I still do not understand, why you think Qur'an allows Mutaah? Kindly explain.
 
Regards,


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 14 December 2008 at 8:32am
 
Originally posted by sabah08 sabah08 wrote:



.......................mut'a would be the answer to prevent zina and prostitution.     

 
 
Prostitution : paying a woman for her services/company for an agreed upon (i.e. temporary) length of time, for sexual satisfaction.
 
Mutaah: paying a woman for her services/company for an agreed upon (i.e. temporary) length of time, for sexual satisfaction.
 
Zina is also the same, for the same purposes, except that no financial transaction takes place. . .
 
How can one be termed better than another?
 
Pl correct me if I am wrong.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Abu_Hadi
Date Posted: 17 December 2008 at 3:48am
Holy Quran allows mutaa' in Surat 4 Ayat 24.
It was  allowed by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
It was made haram by Umar Al Khattab, who had no right to make something haram which was allowed by Quran and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
 
Mutaa' is not prostitution. It is marriage.
The iddah applies to mutaa'. If a prostitute did halal mutaa', she would have to wait 3 months between each new client. Now that would be a pretty poor prostitute, lol.
 
 
 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 December 2008 at 1:17am
Originally posted by Abu_Hadi Abu_Hadi wrote:

Holy Quran allows mutaa' in Surat 4 Ayat 24.
It was  allowed by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
It was made haram by Umar Al Khattab, who had no right to make something haram which was allowed by Quran and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
 
Mutaa' is not prostitution. It is marriage.
The iddah applies to mutaa'. If a prostitute did halal mutaa', she would have to wait 3 months between each new client. Now that would be a pretty poor prostitute, lol.
  

4:24 Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
What part is Mutaa?
What is stopping you marrying upto four?
It is all matter of staying within limits or go past it. If you are a king then you make your own rules! If you have to ask then you know you are asking for trouble!
Now if you pay enough the poverty is non issue! Like in case of King Abdul Aziz & son Saud every woman would get an all found palace! And there was no one telling him or her that it was wrong,,,They went around the rule! Saud went insane and lost throne!




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 19 December 2008 at 7:44am

Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:



  • Like in case of King Saud every woman would get an all found palace!



Who is this King Saud You are talking about?

The woman got the palace for what?

Should I assume it was muta'a because that is the subject of discussion?


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


  • And there was no one telling him or her that it was wrong,,,


Again the same question. Do you mean to say that they were practicing Muta'a?

Kindly elaborate on the above and the following statement:


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


  • He abused his power till he went insane and lost the throne!





Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 December 2008 at 4:25pm
OMG Who doesn't know these guys? Any how
Al Saud was the founder of Kingdom of the Saudi Arabia and Saud was his son who became the next king!

The number of children that Ibn Saud fathered are unknown, and estimates range from about 80 to over 100. One source indicates that he had 37 sons by 16 wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-3 - His number of wives is put at 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-4 - though never more than three or four simultaneously.

The way it worked the tribes offered the daughters to these kings hoping that they will become favorites otherwise a luxurious living facilities was a well understood as part of mehr for the ex wives and princely brood! The concept of mutaa wasn't there probably but then it  sure was some thing that needs a name let's call it Saudia or whatever!

King Saud had 53 sons and 56 daughters, number of wives AOA!



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 20 December 2008 at 5:32am
Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:



OMG Who doesn't know these guys?



Why would I ask you if I knew?

And how do you know them?

Are you an offspring of that dynasty that empowers you to speak so firmly about their private life?


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


........The number of children that Ibn Saud fathered are unknown,......



Unknown to whom?

Wouldnt the children demand their rights?


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


  • he had 37 sons by 16 wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-3 - ......... 

  • His number of wives is put at 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-4 - though never more than three or four simultaneously........

  • King Saud had 53 sons and 56 daughters, number of wives AOA!


Please produce proof of those contradicting  statistics which you wish to spread on the net?

Or have you copied that from some book of fiction?




Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 December 2008 at 6:38pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Saudi_Arabian_Throne - The book of fiction is wiki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_Saudi_Arabian_Throne - Succession to Saudi Arabia 's throne has been a process that has, to a large extent, excluded all but the senior members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Saud - Al Saud . Male progeny, with tenure in senior government positions, whose mothers were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdul_Aziz_Ibn_Saud - King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud 's wives and from prominent peninsula based families and tribes, and who have shown both the willingness and ability to build the necessary consensus from other wings in the family are, in theory, the most eligible candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FDR_on_quincy.jpg -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FDR_on_quincy.jpg">
The number of children that Ibn Saud fathered are unknown, and estimates range from about 80 to over 100. One source indicates that he had 37 sons by 16 wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-3 - [4] His number of wives is put at 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-4 - [5] though never more than three or four simultaneously.They include: (names of Kings in bold)
  1. By Wadha bint Muhammad al-Hazzam
    1. Turki (I) (1900-1919)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia - Saud ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_12 - January 12 , 1902 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_23 - February 23 , 1969); reigned 1953-1964
    3. Nura
    4. Munira
  2. By Tarfah bint Abdullah al-Shaikh Abdul-Wahab
    1. Khaled (I) (born 1903, died in infancy)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia - Faisal (April 1904 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_25 - March 25 , 1975); reigned 1964-1975
    3. Saad (I) (1914 - 1919)
    4. Anud (born 1917)
  3. By Jauhara bint Musa'd Al Saud
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Abdul_Aziz_Al_Saud - Muhammad (1910-1988)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_of_Saudi_Arabia - Khaled (II) (1913 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_13 - June 13 , 1982); reigned 1975-1982
  4. By Lajah bint Khalid bin Hithlayn
    1. Sara (1916 - June 2000)
  5. By Bazza (the first wife named Bazza)
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nasr_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Nasser (1919 - 1984)
  6. By Jawhara bint Sa'ad bin Abd al-Muhsin al-Sudairi
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saad_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Saad (II) (1920 - 1993)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musaid_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud - Musa'id (born 1923)
    3. Abdul Mohsin (1925-1985)
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Bandari_bint_Abdulaziz - Al-Bandari bint Abdulaziz (1928 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008 - 2008 ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-embassy-5 - [6]
  7. By http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassa_bint_Ahmad_al-Sudairi - Hassa bint Ahmad al-Sudairi
    These are known as the " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudairi_Seven - Sudairi Seven ")
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahd_of_Saudi_Arabia - Fahd (II) (1921 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1 - August 1 , 2005); reigned 1982-2005
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Sultan (born 1926); current crown prince
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luluwah_bint_Abdulaziz_Al_Saud - Luluwah bint Abdulaziz (ca 1928 - 2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-SPA-6 - [7]
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahman_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Abd al-Rahman (born 1931)
    5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayef_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Naif (born 1933)
    6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Turki (II) (born 1934)
    7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Salman (born 1936)
    8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Ahmed (born 1942)
    9. Jawaher
    10. Lateefa
    11. Al-Jawhara
    12. Moudhi (died young)
    13. Felwa ( died young)
  8. By Shahida
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mansur_ibn_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Mansur (1922 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2 - May 2 , 1951)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishaal_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Mishaal (born 1926)
    3. Qumasha (born 1927)
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaib_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Mutaib (born 1931)
  9. By http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahda_bint_Asi_al-Shuraim - Fahda bint Asi al-Shuraim
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia - Abdullah (born August 1924); current king, since 2005
    2. Nuf
    3. Sita
  10. By Bazza (the second wife named Bazza)
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud - Bandar (born 1923)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawwaz_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Fawwaz (1934-2008)
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mishari_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Mishari (1932 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_23 - May 23 , 2000)
  11. By Haya bint Sa'ad al-Sudairy (1913 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_18 - April 18 , 2003)
    1. Badr (I) (1931-1932)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Badr (II) (born 1933)
    3. Huzza (1951-July 2000)
    4. Abdalillah (born 1935)
    5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Majeed_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Abdul Majeed (1943-2007)
    6. Nura (born 1930)
    7. Mishail
  12. By Munaiyir
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talal_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud - Talal (II) (born 1932)
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawwaf_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Nawwaf (born 1933)
    3. Madawi
  13. By Mudhi
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana_bint_Abdulaziz_Al-Saud - Sultana bint Abdulaziz (ca. 1928 - 2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-7 - [8]
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majed_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Majed (II) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_19 - October 19 , 1938 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_12 - April 12 , 2003)
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattam_bin_Abdul_Aziz - Sattam (born http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_21 - January 21 , 1941)
    4. Haya
  14. By Nouf bint al-Shalan
    1. Thamir (1937 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_27 - June 27 , 1959)
    2. Mamduh (born 1941)
    3. Mashhur (born 1942)
  15. By Saida al-Yamaniyah
    1. Hidhlul (born 1941)
  16. By Khadra
  17. By Baraka al-Yamaniyah
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqran_bin_Abdul_Aziz_Al_Saud - Muqran (born http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_15 - September 15 , 1945)
  18. By Futayma
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamoud_bin_Abdul_Aziz_al-Saud&action=edit&redlink=1 - Hamad (1947-1994)
  19. By ??
    1. Fahd (I) (1905-1919)
    2. Shaikha (born 1922)
    3. Majeed (I) (1934-1940)
    4. Talal (I) (1930-1931)
    5. Jiluwi (I)(1942-1944)
    6. Jiluwi (II) (1952-1952) Was the youngest son of Ibn Saud but died as an infant.

All of these carry the surname "bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud" for men and "bint Abdul Aziz Al Saud" for women. Ibn Saud is the father of all the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Saudi_Arabia - Kings of Saudi Arabia that have succeeded him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia - King Saud succeeded his father as regent of Saudi Arabia in 1953, three months after being appointed Prime Minister by his father. In 1964 King Saud was deposed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Council_of_Ministers&action=edit&redlink=1 - Saudi Council of Ministers and succeeded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_of_Saudi_Arabia - King Faisal , another of Ibn Saud's sons. Faisal was followed by three further sons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_of_Saudi_Arabia - King Khalid , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahd_of_Saudi_Arabia - King Fahd and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia - King Abdullah . According to the Saudi Basic Law of 1992, the King of Saudi Arabia must be a son or grandson of Ibn Saud.



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 20 December 2008 at 8:46pm
Hello, all

I have written so much on this topic at various sites that I am tired of it.

LOL

Shia brothers defend it. Shia sisters abhor it and would never allow anyone to have a Mut'aa with them for a time.

Once, I had a long discussion with some of my Shia friends and it reached a point, when I said,"Will you then allow me to have Mut'aa with your sisters?"

The answer was a straight NO!

I must say that Mut'aa IS Haraam. Period.

Salaams
BMZ



-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: islami_munda
Date Posted: 21 December 2008 at 11:25pm

it is true that muta is haram in islam n snip snip


Mod-edit: Please do not call Shias, kafir.

Salaams

BMZ



 



Posted By: abosait
Date Posted: 22 December 2008 at 4:47am

 

Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:

................His number of wives is put at 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-4 - On what grounds do you object to that?

No Muslim has any right to consider as unlawful whatever Allah and his Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam have declared as lawful. 
 
Nor has any Muslim any right to declare as halal whatever has been declared Haram by Allah and his Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam.
 
Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread) 5:87
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تُحَرِّمُواْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللّهُ لَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (5:87)

O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.
4:3 An-Nisa (The Women)

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ (4:3)

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 27 December 2008 at 7:16pm
 
Also, I still do not understand, why you think Qur'an allows Mutaah? Kindly explain.
  
 
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=32 - Chrysalis
 
Even though the Shi'a are a minority of Muslims worldwide, they are the majority of the population in Iran and Iraq.  In this light, the legality of mut`a represents the majority of Muslims in these two large, geopolitically important areas in the Middle East.
 
The Shi`a and some Sunni ulama attest that sura 4:24 talks about temporary marriage.

And for those whom you enjoy, (istamta`) give them their appointed wages as due. There is no sin in what you do by mutual agreement.

istamta` - to seek, enjoy, obtain pleasure from, hence mut`a - marriage of pleasure/ temporary marriage  

Maybe it's not a question of 'playing' with words as much as it is a reflection of two differing interpretations that are both valid?... 


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 27 December 2008 at 7:24pm
 abosait Posted: 13 December 2008 at 6:15am
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13439&PID=117505#117505 -  
Changinging the name of the same act does not make it legal.
 
abosait,
Structurally temporary marriage has similarities to prostitution, but ideologically, mut`a serves as the answer to illicit sexual encounters.
 
One must be cautious when saying mut`a is prostitution, for it is well agreed by Sunnis and Shi'is that the Prophet allowed mut`a.
 
 
 


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 27 December 2008 at 7:38pm
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=32 - Chrysalis   Posted: 14 December 2008 at 8:32am
 
Prostitution : paying a woman for her services/company for an agreed upon (i.e. temporary) length of time, for sexual satisfaction.
 
Mutaah: paying a woman for her services/company for an agreed upon (i.e. temporary) length of time, for sexual satisfaction.
 
Zina is also the same, for the same purposes, except that no financial transaction takes place. . .
 
How can one be termed better than another?
 
Pl correct me if I am wrong.
 
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=58478&FID=32 - Chrysalis ,
 
If one links mut`a to prostitution because of an exchange of money, doesn't an exchange of money occur in permanent marriage? In permanent marriage, doesn't a man give a wife money in exchange for sexual intercourse with her?
 
If one likens mut`a to prostitution because of the time period involved; a mut`a union does not have to be fleeting - it can last up to 99 years. That would be as long, if not longer, than a permanent marriage.
 
Zina is consensual sexual relations between a man and a woman not married to each other.
 
Also, a mut`a contract can be non-sexual; a man and a woman can agree to spend time with each other without having sexual intercourse.  


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 27 December 2008 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by Abu_Hadi Abu_Hadi wrote:

Holy Quran allows mutaa' in Surat 4 Ayat 24.
It was  allowed by Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
It was made haram by Umar Al Khattab, who had no right to make something haram which was allowed by Quran and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)
 
Mutaa' is not prostitution. It is marriage.
The iddah applies to mutaa'. If a prostitute did halal mutaa', she would have to wait 3 months between each new client. Now that would be a pretty poor prostitute, lol.
 
 
The confusion of linking mut`a with prostitution probably stems from their structural similarities - exchange of money, fixed time; however, ideologically, mut`a serves as a divine way of channeling desire and promotes the good of Islamic cultures and societies.
 
The idda for mut`a is not as long as a permanent wife; so, it's roughly two months. 
 
One major distinguishing factor between mut`a and prostitution is the legitimacy of children born from a mut`a union.
 
In fact, spouses can even insert an inheritance stipulation in the mut`a contract.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: sabah08
Date Posted: 27 December 2008 at 8:37pm
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=53420&FID=32 - Sign*Reader Posted: 12 December 2008 at 8:15pm
 
"I think it was mostly got practiced in the areas conquered from the Sassanid  cuz the battles really decimated a large portion of the Sassanid men population! When Caliph Umar realized that it was becoming a threat to the fabric of standing force he put an end to it....he cut short the rotation period and took the seperation from wife excuse out of the picture!
But what Umar did, the Shiit had to oppose it ! Any wonder they celebrate his assassination in Iran and LuLu is has a shrine ! "
 
 
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=53420&FID=32 - Sign*Reader ,
 
The Prophet allowed mut'a during times of trouble or hardships when women were scarce and during times of war.
 
According to this shahih hadith:
 
Abd Allah b. Masud said: We were raiding with the Messenger of God and we did not have women.  And we said: Should we not castrate ourselves Muhammad forbade us from doing so and then he permitted us to marry a woman for a piece of cloth for an appointed time.
 
As men were apart from their wives, mut`a served as a means of fulfilling male sexual desire during battle. If it was a threat to the strategic outcome of war, why would the Prophet allow mut`a but also recommend mut`a?
 
According to your analysis Umar banned it, so why would a person (even though a sahaba and one of the rightly guided caliphs) have any right to abrogate the sahih hadith of the Prophet?  Besides, at the time of Umar, one cannot really speak of a separate Shi'i group. Of course there was a small group of Ali's supporters at Umar's time, but the true Shi'i identity did not crystallize until later, as a result of the battle of Karbala 680 CE.
 
 


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 29 December 2008 at 4:35am
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -
The answer was a straight NO!
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 01 January 2009 at 9:28am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - BMZ:
Once, I had a long discussion with some of my Shia friends and it reached a point, when I said,"Will you then allow me to have Mut'aa with your sisters?"

The answer was a straight NO!
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRaheleh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml -
The criteria of Halal and Haram are what that can be proved from Quran and Sunnah not (in this case) YES or NO answer of the brother of a woman. In a permanent marriage in Islam, does one always need a �YES� from the brother of a woman they want to marry?
 
Myahya , I think what BMZ was saying was that the nature of the Mutaah is such - that no brother would like his sister to be in a 'temporary' marriage. Meaning, if Mutaah was so nice and gave respect to a woman, and was that good - no brother would feel wierd about his sister entering a 'temporary' intimacy contract with a man.
 
and that men who defend Mutaah so much, would never choose that option for a sister or a daughter.
 
It has nothing to do with one needing a 'yes' or permission from the woman's brother to wed a woman. That is not the case in Islam - and I dont think that is what BMZ meant.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 02 January 2009 at 6:42am

Chrysalis: I think what BMZ was saying was that the nature of the Mutaah is such - that no brother would like his sister to be in a 'temporary' marriage.

No difference, what I am saying is that the feeling of people must not change the religion. If something is Halal or Haram in religion (and it is proved) then it is. We can not argue based on what people would or would not like. Perhaps people are misunderstood about a religious context in a period of history, having bad feeling about that. One may think that the aim of Mutaah is sexual satisfaction and nothing else, while in my understanding it is not. As far as I know, Mutaah is a contract between the two. As long as each side sets a term and condition (e.g. not having sexual activity) and the other side accepts it, then they can not break the promise religiously.

Consider a Muslim brother and his Muslimeh sister. The sister is divorced or widow and is single. The sister would like to have a man. Now consider following hypothetical situations:

1-      The sister starts dating with strange men (even perhaps non Muslims) which is of course out of marriage and Haram, while she is to be endangered of committing fornication, a greater Haram.

2-      The sister starts getting know a Muslim through temporary marriage (with having the right of setting conditions as I said above) with the possible potentials for it to be eventually turned into permanent marriage and make a family.

3-      The sister bans any relationship on herself just waiting for a chance in which a suitable Muslim may come to her asking for a permanent marriage. A condition which may never take place in the rest of her life.

Now what do you think the opinion of the brother would be? Should it be still a straight NO?


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 03 January 2009 at 12:21pm
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

 

As long as each side sets a term and condition (e.g. not having sexual activity)

Interesting development in Mutaah now. So people actually 'contract' Mutaah only so they can have an interesting converstation about the weather over a cup of tea? Thats a temporary 'Marriage' ?
 
Quote Consider a Muslim brother and his Muslimeh sister. The sister is divorced or widow and is single. The sister would like to have a man.
 
Temporarily?
 
My logic would say if a Muslimah wanted a man, she would like a permanent one - like I donno - in a Nikah perhaps???
 
Quote
Now consider following hypothetical situations:

<!--[if !supLists]-->1-      <!--[endif]-->The sister starts dating with strange men (even perhaps non Muslims) which is of course out of marriage and Haram, while she is to be endangered of committing fornication, a greater Haram.

<!--[if !supLists]-->2-      <!--[endif]-->The sister starts getting know a Muslim through temporary marriage (with having the right of setting conditions as I said above) with the possible potentials for it to be eventually turned into permanent marriage and make a family.

So basically what you are saying is, that Mutaah is "Islamic" Dating ? Getting to know a man before marriage, with possible potentials for a 'permanent' marriage?
 
In the first place, there is no need for such a Mutaah. Because according to ahadith, Muslims are allowed to meet/know a prospective spouse under Islamic limitations, without the elaborate/confusing/outdated need for a sham/temporary marriage. 
 
 
Quote

<!--[if !supLists]-->3-      <!--[endif]-->The sister bans any relationship on herself just waiting for a chance in which a suitable Muslim may come to her asking for a permanent marriage. A condition which may never take place in the rest of her life.

So what you are saying is, it is better for a woman to become a Temporary wife, and risk emotional baggage / a child - all the while knowing that this relationship is bound to end and is temporary and not even 'legally' recognized, save perhaps one country only.
I think the brother would prefer his sister became a 2nd wife - rather than a temporary one, since thats 'permanent'/legal - better for the woman, and her children. Wouldnt you think so?
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 04 January 2009 at 2:34am
Interesting development in Mutaah now.

It is not a development. It is only different from what you had always thought of it.

So people actually 'contract' Mutaah only so they can have an interesting converstation about the weather over a cup of tea? Thats a temporary 'Marriage' ?

I did not say that it is only a conversation. I gave a possible example. Furthermore, it seems you are establishing a new development in Marriage which can only be named "Marriage" after the first sexual intercourse.

My logic would say if a Muslimah wanted a man, she would like a permanent one - like I donno - in a Nikah perhaps???

If it happens in the first place it is the best of course, making a family. But in reality the conditions do not always allow any individual in any situation marry permanently.

So basically what you are saying is, that Mutaah is "Islamic" Dating ? Getting to know a man before marriage, with possible potentials for a 'permanent' marriage?

Actually not, what I said was an instance. It is much wider than a dating. It can cover from a simple dating to permanent marriage.

Muslims are allowed to meet/know a prospective spouse under Islamic limitations, without the elaborate/confusing/outdated need for a sham/temporary marriage�. So what you are saying is, it is better for a woman to become a Temporary wife, and risk emotional baggage / a child - all the while knowing that this relationship is bound to end and is temporary and not even 'legally' recognized, save perhaps one country only.

 I do not generalize what is better for a Muslimeh woman. It is an individual dependent case and a Muslimeh woman has hypothetically the right to decide what is better for her (without committing any Haram) while she is not forced in any way to marry temporarily.

I have to say again that: whether it is legally recognized in today�s Muslim (Shia or Sunni or whatever) countries or not, it does not bring religious validity or invalidity to it in Islam. This issue (like many other similar controversial subjects) should be resolved through academic debate between Muslim Olamaas and experts in Islam to converge to the point that is REALLY the will of Allah swt and his Messenger. The will of Allah determines what Muslims should or shouldn�t do, not the reverse.

In addition, could you present a justification why there exist Zena statistics in Islamic societies with the presence of �Islamic dating + permanent marriage�?

I think the brother would prefer his sister became a 2nd wife - rather than a temporary one, since thats 'permanent'/legal - better for the woman, and her children. Wouldnt you think so?

In fact the wish of the brother does not guarantee that it happens for his sister, does it? 


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 05 January 2009 at 5:27am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

Interesting development in Mutaah now.

It is not a development. It is only different from what you had always thought of it.
 
The origins of Mutaah, and its basic purpose is sexual satisfaction - for those who do not wish a longterm partner.

Quote

I did not say that it is only a conversation. I gave a possible example. Furthermore, it seems you are establishing a new development in Marriage which can only be named "Marriage" after the first sexual intercourse.
 
One of the primary and significant reasons for Marriage is sexual intimacy and children i.e a family. It is rare cases indeed when people get married simply for the company - sans intimacy. And even if certain people wish for such a r/ship due to whatever situation - Nikaah is still a perfectly valid option .  Mutaah is thus obsolete. People dont simply get married because they wish to 'Know one another' - which is why the instance you gave an example of, doesnt make sense at all. 


Quote In addition, could you present a justification why there exist Zena statistics in Islamic societies with the presence of �Islamic dating + permanent marriage�?
i'm afraid I dont understand what you mean. Kindly clarify.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 4:22am

The origins of Mutaah, and its basic purpose is sexual satisfaction - for those who do not wish a longterm partner.

I do not know why you are pessimistically viewing that members of a society are definitely waiting to abuse any condition to escape from permanent marriage.

A healthy Muslim or even a human being (in soul, brain and faith) does not wish a short-term partner while he/she does really have all necessary conditions to make a good permanent partner and family.  Those who (in spite of having the conditions to make a family) do not wish a longterm partner to intentionally serve their Nafs will commit adultery even if they have permanent partner in a permanent marriage.

You know in Muslim societies people commit fornication or some other forms of Haram (like masturbation) or other great sins. Socially speaking, why do you think sticking to permanent marriage have not solved these problems? And what if, on the Last Day, we recognize that Mutaah was Halal and it could preserve thousands of Muslims (in history) from such sins but Muslims had wrongly banned it on themselves committing so many Harams instead?


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 06 January 2009 at 5:12am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

I do not know why you are pessimistically viewing that members of a society are definitely waiting to abuse any condition to escape from permanent marriage.

Considering the fact that a significant majority of Muslims today believe in orthodox Nikaah i.e. long term r/ships - and do not consider Mutaah to be a viable option, reflects that they are not wanting to escape permanent marriage. So, really I'm not pessimistic at all. The proponents of are simply validating all those elements of the society that turn thier back on Nikaah - by allowing them to fulfill thier Nafs outside of a non-temporary r/ship. 

Quote Those who (in spite of having the conditions to make a family) do not wish a longterm partner to intentionally serve their Nafs will commit adultery even if they have permanent partner in a permanent marriage.
Agreed. So? How does that make Mutaah acceptable today?

Quote You know in Muslim societies people commit fornication or some other forms of Haram (like masturbation) or other great sins. Socially speaking, why do you think sticking to permanent marriage have not solved these problems? And what if, on the Last Day, we recognize that Mutaah was Halal and it could preserve thousands of Muslims (in history) from such sins but Muslims had wrongly banned it on themselves committing so many Harams instead?
 
Okay wait a minute. Are you seriously suggesting that permanent marriage cannot stop sexual evils in a society - hence Mutaah is the answer??? Are you suggesting that a Nikaah cannot solve these problems, but Mutaah can? How so? My point is that due to the existence of Nikaah - any need for Mutaah is obsolete, because all the 'benefits' you claim belong to Mutaah - belong to a Nikaah.
 
Why do a man and woman need to contract a temporary Mutaah - when what they are looking for can be achieved through Nikah?
 
 
1. Sexual/Social Evils in Muslim (or even nonmuslim) societies that still hold on to some remnants of marital sanctity are vastly less than that of other societies that do not.
 
2. Temporary 'on-off' relationships are not a solution to social evils.
 
3. Don't tell me that Mutaah is not a temporary 'on-off' r/ship - because its entire concept of existence is based on its 'temporary' nature. Had it not been so, we would be calling it Nikaah, and our discussion wouldnt be taking place in the first place.
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: cherishlife
Date Posted: 07 January 2009 at 11:27am
Originally posted by abosait abosait wrote:

Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:



OMG Who doesn't know these guys?



Why would I ask you if I knew?

And how do you know them?

Are you an offspring of that dynasty that empowers you to speak so firmly about their private life?


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


........The number of children that Ibn Saud fathered are unknown,......



No, I'm not an offspring, but I personally know the wife, the daughter and one of the two son's of Prince Faisal, who is a grandson to
Ibn Saud.

Unknown to whom?

Wouldnt the children demand their rights?


Originally posted by Sign*Reader Sign*Reader wrote:


  • he had 37 sons by 16 wives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-3 - ......... 

  • His number of wives is put at 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud#cite_note-4 - though never more than three or four simultaneously........

  • King Saud had 53 sons and 56 daughters, number of wives AOA!


Please produce proof of those contradicting  statistics which you wish to spread on the net?

Or have you copied that from some book of fiction?




You can check for yourself  at :
 
http://www.katagogi.com/CreateTree/DrawTree.aspx?fid=697&l=EN




Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 08 January 2009 at 1:49am

Are you seriously suggesting that permanent marriage cannot stop sexual evils in a society - hence Mutaah is the answer??? Are you suggesting that a Nikaah cannot solve these problems, but Mutaah can? How so? My point is that due to the existence of Nikaah - any need for Mutaah is obsolete, because all the 'benefits' you claim belong to Mutaah - belong to a Nikaah.

My assumption in discussion is that Mutah is Halal (religiously not evil) otherwise it doesn�t differ from fornication and there is no point in discussion. For a second assume that Mutahh is Halal. If it be, sexual evils (from religious point of view) would be disappeared (or dramatically decreased) If any fornication (or other Haram sexual activities or relationships) happened in a Muslim society was replaced by a Mutahh while such a replacement can be performed unconditionally. In practice, for example fornication can not be unconditionally and globally replaced by a permanent marriage (for anybody in any situation, any society and any time).


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 08 January 2009 at 3:08am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

 For a second assume that Mutahh is Halal. If it be, sexual evils (from religious point of view) would be disappeared (or dramatically decreased) If any fornication (or other Haram sexual activities or relationships) happened in a Muslim society was replaced by a Mutahh while such a replacement can be performed unconditionally. In practice, for example fornication can not be unconditionally and globally replaced by a permanent marriage (for anybody in any situation, any society and any time).
 
Okay, for discussion's sake it is assumed Mutaah is Halal.
 
Lets analyse the fornicator, shall we? Most of such ppl fornicate because they are either not aware of religion, or concious of it. Or, even if they are, they forget consequences and submit to the nafs at the moment. Hence, those people are not likely to conduct Mutaah anyway. They would not even consider Nikaah. Majority of such sins occur spur of the moment, when a Muslim is led astray and forgets consequences - the remaining ones dont care about religion. Thus, they are  not-likely to conduct  a Mutaah.
 
The majority of Muslim fornicators are not likely to plan thier sins in advance - hence are not likely to say, oh! we may fornicate, let us do Nikaah/Mutaah to save ourselves.  Had they stopped to think or consider, they may not have sinned in the first place, or they may have gone for Nikaah. But the fact of the matter is, that in cases like these - it is solely up to the Taqwa and Will-power of the person. . . if they are God-fearing, they will not sin regardless of marital status. But if they are of a loose-character, they will sleep around even if they are married.
 
Also . . . .Let us assume for a second that people do stop themselves in order to conduct Mutaah. Is it really that beneficial? /moral? If that would be the case, young people would be conducting marriages lasting a few hours, just like the ones that happen in Vegas. What would happen is, that the sancitity of Marriage would be made a sham. One of the main purposes of Marriage is to decrease promiscuity. Promiscuity means having diverse/unrelated/indiscriminate/casual sexual partners. The nature of Mutaah is such, that it is still enabling Promiscuity. . . . i.e. allowing ppl to conduct temporary relations with anyone, only to end, and then began again , with someone else. Promiscuity as we all know, is bad - medically, socially, psychologically - and now with the advent of DNA-testing and childsupport, economically as well.
 
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 08 January 2009 at 1:41pm
Any one/
Is there a limit on number of mutahs one can conduct simultaneously?

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: StepFriend
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 3:34am
I have read this debate a-z and also on various other forums .. its bizzar strange and non-sense.. then why am i contributing here .. funny .. but i could not stop from adding a few points that have come to my knowlege
 
1. the interpertation of Ayah is disputed as per Shia friends .. then why debate so much .. Lakum Deeno kum Waleya Deen ... go figure ..
 
2. mosty supposedly Shia men insist on its being Halal .. but i have personally met shia girls from noble familes who consider it as filthy and a form of prostitution .. i could not agree any shia girl getting into Muta except those in Heera Mandi
 
3. All those men who advocate Mut'a so much i have a simple question did your mother bore you as a result of Mut'a or do you allow your sister or daugther the same .. if yes .. i am willing .. let me know
 
4. on internet you never know that who the other person is .. so it could be a hindu .. a jew or even a sunni .. trying to entertain himself .. so such debates are usually not productive .. my advice is .. no use ..


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 09 January 2009 at 8:03am

The majority of Muslim fornicators are not likely to plan thier sins in advance - hence are not likely to say, oh! we may fornicate, let us do Nikaah/Mutaah to save ourselves.

They do not plan in advance?! Anyway there is a start point for the relationship. The very start point can not be a sexual activity. And I am sure you are not suggesting that the very start point is an Islamic dating. A dating which might eventually lead to fornication can not be Islamic. If two Muslims start a relationship if the very start point of the relationship be Nikah or Mutaah, then ALL conditions are already specified in details in advance. If Mutaah be Halal, and if they can not wait for Nikah and commit sin and/or fornication they are absolutely responsible for it. There is no room for accusing Allah or his Messenger that the external conditions had not been there for avoiding fornication.

If that would be the case, young people would be conducting marriages lasting a few hours, just like the ones that happen in Vegas.

Abusing Mutaah would not be allowed like abusing Nikah or any other Halal. Eating Halal food in Islam is praised. What if one eats and eats to the edge of death? Of course it is a great sin. A Muslim who has Taqwaa should fear of Allah. Such a person should know as a Muslim that if s/he abuses any Halal then they are not just and will be responsible for the consequences in this world and in the other.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 10 January 2009 at 12:18am
Originally posted by StepFriend StepFriend wrote:

I
 
4. on internet you never know that who the other person is .. so it could be a hindu .. a jew or even a sunni .. trying to entertain himself .. so such debates are usually not productive .. my advice is .. no use ..
 
Hello StepFriend,
 
It is irrelevant who the other person is, that does not really affect the discussion, and its not a debate. If the other person gets kicks out of online discussions, good for them - however I think that it is sort of incumbent on muslims to say something or speak out. They need not pursue it endlessly, but something should be said. Just like you, I am sure there were many new muslims, or nonmuslims reading this thread, wondering why Islam alllows temporary marriages - hopefully inshalah thier misconceptions were cleared. It irks me when muslims themselves give nonmuslims an opportunity to badmouth Islam. Our purpose should not be to convince the other person - because that rarely happens - it should be to get the message across. Then leave the rest to Allah. Jazakallah for your advise though.
 
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 20 January 2009 at 3:11am
Sahih Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527:

Narrated '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



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 8:18am

Sahih Muslim

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/008.smt.html

Book 008, Number 3267:

'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said to Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the Day of Khaibar forbade forever the contracting of temporary marriage and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

This means that the temporary marriage was forbidden on the day of Khaibar forever.

Book 008, Number 3255:

Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon hm) he said: 0 people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to then (as dower).

Book 008, Number 3256:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of 'Abd al-'Aziz b 'Umar with the same chain of transmitters, and he said: I saw Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) standing between the pillar and the gate (of the Ka'ba) and he was relating a hadith as narrated by Ibn Numair.

Again it seems it was forbidden on the day of victory of Mecca forever.

Book 008, Number 3251:

Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas 1847 and then forbade it.

Thus, again it was forbidden after the battle of Hunain.

I am confused with these ahadith. Something seems wrong with them. How is it possible that it was forbidden FOREVER by the prophet at two different points of time, on the Day of Khaibar and on the victory of Mecca and both with the order of the prophet? If it is forbidden forever it must be one time. People were practicing it between these two instants of time?? Did they not know that it was forbidden forever? Then it was again permitted and forbidden after the battle of Hunain with the order of the Prophet?!!

On the other hand, some other ahadith say that it was Umar that forbid them. Shall I bring them? How we can trust these two groups of ahadith together?


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 9:25am

Something cannot be wrong with the ahadith - because they are Sahih Ahadith, from Bukhari and Muslim - the highest authority known, and I am not about to 'argue' on the authenticity of the ahadith - since its a general muslim fact. One can start a seperate thread for that.

While Islam was gradually bieng revealed, there were numerous practises of the Sahaba which were practised since pre-islamic times. Mutaah was one of them - No need to dwelve furthur, we all know that.
 
Then, Prophet Muhammad gradually started to discourage and ban certain things. At the onset of Islam, the tone was used as a gentle reprimand, rather than a firm strict order. An example of which is Drinking. Before Allah banned Alcohol in the Qur'an, and before clear-cut ahadith, the Prophet prepared the masses gently - by saying things such as 'Dont go near prayer when drunk'. . . etc. Then, after the muslims got used to the commands, it was later made final and clear-cut. A muslim now, cannot pick up that particular saying of the Prophet (dont pray when drunk) and say, that this hadith suggests its ok to drink, as long as we dont pray drunk.
 
My view is, (and I say my view, because I am admitting it is prone to error, hence open to any corrections) that in one hadith, Prophet Muhammad forbade it himself, just like when he forbade prayer when drunk . . . . it was a transitional hadith to set a mood, that would discourage Mutaah. However, people still practised it one or two occasions, and the Prophet let it happen - because he was afraid that some muslims of weak imaan may be shaken. I will post that part later. I noticed that in the other hadith, Prophet Muhammad said "0 people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection" . In this hadith he says, "Allah has forbidden it "- which means, before this hadith, Allah had not sent down a clear-cut order . . . which is why Prophet Muhammad allowed it on exceptional circumstances. But after Allah sent down a clear-cut order - even Prophet Muhammad did not allow it ever again.
 
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 21 January 2009 at 9:45am

Also, I came across this interesting article on Mutaah, that inshallah answers some of your questions :

Mutah Forbidden in Stages

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.

  • Hadith Forbidding Mutah

The Hadith forbidding Mutah are considered Mutawattir, meaning that they have been transmitted so many times and by so many people that there is no doubt as to their authenticity. Here are but a few of the many Hadith in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) banned Mutah:

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

�O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.� [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

�The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.� [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi�i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

�You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.� [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee� Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

�I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.� [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

�O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah, ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages in temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring two witnesses to prove that the Messenger had permitted it after forbidding it.� [Ibn Majah]

Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Numayr who said:

�My father had narrated to us according to Ubaidullah according to Ibn shahab according to Alhassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad bin Ali according to their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn Abbas being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, �wait Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic camels.�� [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

�In the year of Autas, Allah�s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.� [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

�Allah�s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.� [Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

�At the battle of Khaybar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mutah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.� [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa�i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]

It was narrated from al-Rabee� ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

�O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.� [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

Sabrah bin Ma� bad al-Jihani reported:

�I went forth with the Prophet for the conquest of Mecca, and he allowed us Mutah with women. But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah.�

. . . (i am going straight to the relevant parts). . . . . . . Likewise, it seems probable that Mutah was first forbidden to those at Khaybar in the year 7 A.H. and was then completely prohibited to all upon the conquest of Mecca in 8 A.H.

  • Umar (رضّى الله عنه) Did Not Invent the Ruling on Mutah

The Shia claim that it was Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who forbade the practice of Mutah and that Mutah was openly practiced during the lifetimes of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). In fact, Sunnis acknowledge that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) again declared Mutah to be illegal, but they also state that he did not make the ruling from himself. He was merely reiterating the words of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was elected Caliph just two and a half years after the Prophet�s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Present around him were the respected family members and noble companions of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Had Umar�s declaration (رضّى الله عنه) been contrary to the Prophet�s practice (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), a number of these noble people would have objected to it. Yet, nowhere in Islamic history is recorded a single protest against his announcement.

Furthermore, since Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was later succeeded by Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and then by Ali (رضّى الله عنه), had Umar�s statements (رضّى الله عنه) been contrary to the ruling of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) at least one of them would have reestablished the sanctity of Mutah. Again, there are no records of such abrogation. Oddly enough, the Shia believe that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) left behind a voluminous book, Nahjul Balagha, wherein he presented various aspects of Islam and the Muslim state. However, not a single word in favor of Mutah is mentioned in it. Had Umar (رضّى الله عنه) been wrong in forbidding Mutah, nothing would have prevented Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from condemning it in his writings.

After the Prophet�s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), there were some people who were unaware of the prohibition of Mutah and thus allowed it. Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) was one such individual, but he later recanted on this position after Ali (رضّى الله عنه) corrected him. The Shia bring up Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) to somehow prove that Mutah is Halal. How can this lone opinion of one Sahabah go against the sayings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) made a sincere mistake, and the reliable reports indicate that he corrected his position later on.

The fact is that in the end the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) forbade Mutah. Perhaps some people might not have been aware of its prohibition and subsequently contracted it after the Prophet�s death; however, when Umar (رضّى الله عنه) found out about it, he made another public declaration against it and enforced the ruling as the Caliph and head of the Islamic state. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) demanded the people to give Zakat when he became Caliph; does any rational mind claim that it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who invented the obligation of Zakat? There were even some Companions who were of the opinion that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should be lenient towards those Zakat evaders, and yet Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) rejected these calls for lenience. Likewise, there were some people who were lenient towards Mutah, especially in light of the fact that there were many new converts in a fast-growing empire, but Umar (رضّى الله عنه) rejected these calls for lenience and instead called for the rigid implementation of the Shariah.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/ - http://www.ahlelbayt.com/



-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 23 January 2009 at 5:32am

Chrysalis, I read the report but unfortunately there are contradictory ahadith on this issue. Read the following please:

Ali (as) said: The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrong-doer)."

  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran;
  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p200, commentary of verse 4:24;

Umar said: Two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both, and I punish those who commit it. They are: Mut'a of pilgrimage and Mut'a of women.

  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p201 under verse 4:24
  • Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

"al-Bukhari declared that Umar used to forbid people on Mut'a."

  • Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v1, p233
For the case of alcohol, we can see a clear and indisputable trend in Quran starting from not allowing the believers to pray while they are drunk, and completing with very clear verse that getting involved in such actions is strictly prohibited. However, such a prohibition about temporary marriage does not exist in Quran.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 11 February 2009 at 10:36pm
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

Chrysalis, I read the report but unfortunately there are contradictory ahadith on this issue. Read the following please:

Ali (as) said: The Mut'a is a mercy from Allah to his servants. If it were not for Umar forbidding it, no one would commit (the sin) of fornication except the wretched (Shaqi; an utmost wrong-doer)."

  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi, under commentary of verse 4:24 of Quran;
  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p200, commentary of verse 4:24;
I guess here is where a point of difference arises - like the majority of muslims I consider the Sahih Ahadith to be far more authentic and reliable compared to the ones you posted. Are those Shia sources? Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc hold more authencity for me, and are undisputed by a vast majority of scolars. And those sahih ahadith report that Ali (r.a.) held very different opinions regarding Mutaah - those in line with other sahaba and the Prophet.

Quote Umar said: Two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both, and I punish those who commit it. They are: Mut'a of pilgrimage and Mut'a of women.

  • Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Fakhr al-Razi, v3, p201 under verse 4:24
  • Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p52

"al-Bukhari declared that Umar used to forbid people on Mut'a."

  • Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v1, p233
Yes, Umar (r.a) did enforce the ban on Mutaah - not because he invented the ban - he was implementing Prophet Muhammad's ahadith. Had Umar (r.a) been the one who invented the ban against Mutaah - why would we have numerous ahadith by other sahabah who said the same thing? This issue has been clarified in detail in the article in the previous post. So I am not going to repeat.




-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 12 February 2009 at 6:44am

I guess here is where a point of difference arises - like the majority of muslims I consider the Sahih Ahadith to be far more authentic and reliable compared to the ones you posted. Are those Shia sources? Sahih Bukhari, Muslim etc hold more authencity for me, and are undisputed by a vast majority of scolars.

None of them are Shia sources. I am astonished. You do not consider Al-Fakhr Al-Razi authentic? He is very well known and among the greatest Olamaa in Sunni scholars. His great tafsir (Tafsir Alkabir) is very famous and among the top five Sunni Tafsirs. Why do you consider it not authentic in this case? Is it not because it says Umar was not inline with the prophet in this case and you do not simply like it? Was Umar infallible?

This ahadith say that the Mutah was not prohibited. Some of the ahadith of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim say that Mutah was prohibited (though with the contradictions I have already talked about). When there is a difference in ahadith, one should compare them with Quran unless they want to give wrong superiority to one of the ahadith above Quran. In Quran no verse can be found on prohibition of Mutah. Therefore, It is clear that the first type of hadith is inline with the Quran.

Yes, Umar (r.a) did enforce the ban on Mutaah - not because he invented the ban - he was implementing Prophet Muhammad's ahadith.

Had Umar not invented the ban on Mutah he would not say �two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both� this is a very clear sentence. It is not possible to interpret it in different ways.

why would we have numerous ahadith by other sahabah

First, I do not believe that sahabah must have acted in line with the prophet (sawa) hundred-percently only because they were sahabah. Second, let us know where Ali (as) banned Mutah (or punished people because of it) when he was Caliph. Notice that if Mutah were Halal at the time of the prophet and Umar has made it Haram, it must not have been established beside Ali (as) (since it was not established by the prophet). Thus no need for reestablishment at all.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 13 February 2009 at 10:24am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

 Is it not because it says Umar was not inline with the prophet in this case and you do not simply like it? Was Umar infallible?

On the contrary, Umar (r.a) was perfectly in line with the Propet's commandments when he enforced the ban on Mutaah. Refer to the numerous ahadith that other sahaba narrated, (and yes, I find myself repeating here) all happen to be in line with what Umar did, by fluke? Oh, ofcourse, I can hear u loud and clear, according to you, none of those respected sahaba were correct?
 
And no, Umar was not infallible, but he was an extremely God-Fearing, God Concious man, who lived and breathed the sunnah. Alhamdulilah, I and other muslims have faith in the trust Prophet Muhammad had in him.

Quote This ahadith say that the Mutah was not prohibited. Some of the ahadith of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim say that Mutah was prohibited (though with the contradictions I have already talked about). When there is a difference in ahadith, one should compare them with Quran unless they want to give wrong superiority to one of the ahadith above Quran. In Quran no verse can be found on prohibition of Mutah. Therefore, It is clear that the first type of hadith is inline with the Quran.

You and I, both are now repeating ourselves. You say there is a contradiction - I say there is not (pl refer to article again) since Mutaah was discouraged, briefly allowed for an exceptional circumstance - and then permanently banned. The ahadith specifically mention this time sequence (e.g those that say Mutaah was previously allowed, but now it is banned)
 
And Qur'an does not allow Mutaah at all, and please dont give me the verses on Nikaah, and twist them to mean that they are talking about a 'temporary' marriage. When they are not. There is no 'temporary' in marriage.

Quote Had Umar not invented the ban on Mutah he would not say �two types of Mut'a were (legal) during the time of the Prophet and I forbid them both� this is a very clear sentence. It is not possible to interpret it in different ways.

Nobody is saying Mutaah was illegal since the start!!!! Just like Alcohol wasnt illegal from the start!!!! Mutaah was practised during the Prophet's time until he banned it!!! So Umar (R.a) is clearly referring to the time period when it was not banned!!!! The early days of Islam !!!! How does it in anyway mean he invented the ban??? If Umar (r.a) had done that, surely people would have questioned him? We have instances of when a man questioned Umar about some cloth he recieved from the bait-al-maal.... We have an instance when an old woman questioned Umar (r.a) about him fixing the Mahr amount - in both cases he humbly answered his challengers, and in the case of the old woman, even corrected himself. . . so its not like they would keep quiet had he invented a ban on Mutaah.
 
Quote First, I do not believe that sahabah must have acted in line with the prophet (sawa) hundred-percently only because they were sahabah. Second, let us know where Ali (as) banned Mutah (or punished people because of it) when he was Caliph. Notice that if Mutah were Halal at the time of the prophet and Umar has made it Haram, it must not have been established beside Ali (as) (since it was not established by the prophet). Thus no need for reestablishment at all.
 
So all the sahabah that you dont like, didnt act according to sunnah? Okay, perhaps not all - but what about the 10 sahabah that were given the glorious prediction of Jannah in thier lifetimes? They did not follow sunnah 100% ??? Umar is one of them.
 
And I do not understand your statement in bold at all. If u could kindly re-word it.  
 
Since its now getting repititive, I may not respond unless there is something else which is important to adderess.
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 16 February 2009 at 6:31am

On the contrary, Umar (r.a) was perfectly in line with the Propet's commandments when he enforced the ban on Mutaah. Refer to the numerous ahadith that other sahaba narrated, (and yes, I find myself repeating here) all happen to be in line with what Umar did, by fluke? Oh, ofcourse, I can hear u loud and clear, according to you, none of those respected sahaba were correct?

 Among the sahabah full correctness only belongs to Ali (as) because he with his wife Fatima (as) and Hasan (as) and Husain (as) were the only infallible people after the death of the ptophet (as). In the other thread I have provided parts of evidences, reasons and proofs for this claim. The other sahabah do not deserve being followed because of fallibility, though whatever due respect one may concern. Nobody can even be compared to Ali (as) in this regard.

And no, Umar was not infallible, but he was an extremely God-Fearing, God Concious man, who lived and breathed the sunnah. Alhamdulilah, I and other muslims have faith in the trust Prophet Muhammad had in him.

What do you mean by trust here?! The prophet Mohammad (as) had trust in every individual of Ummah.

And Qur'an does not allow Mutaah at all, and please dont give me the verses on Nikaah, and twist them to mean that they are talking about a 'temporary' marriage. When they are not. There is no 'temporary' in marriage.

Neither I bring a verse from Quran without evidence and proof, nor do I twist the meaning. I have presented ahadith under the verse 4:24 from authentic Tafasir. This shows that they have discussed Mutah under this verse. Are you saying you understand the Arabic structure of 4:24 more than Al-Fakhr Al-Razi?

Furthermore, if the Quran does not allow Mutaah at all, why the Prophet allow it at all? The prophet was infallible and did not act or talk in contrary to the Quran even for one moment.  Let me explain to you what you are doing, you are accusing the prophet of allowing what Quran did not allow at all for the sake of defending Umar, unfortunately.

Nobody is saying Mutaah was illegal since the start!!!!

In the previous paragraph you saind Quran does not allow Mutaah at all. Here you say nobody says it was illegal since the start.

Just like Alcohol wasnt illegal from the start!!!! Mutaah was practised during the Prophet's time until he banned it!!! So Umar (R.a) is clearly referring to the time period when it was not banned!!!! The early days of Islam !!!! How does it in anyway mean he invented the ban???

Mutah and Alcohol have nothing to do with each other. I do not know who has invented such imagination while you can not find such similarity even in Quran. I do not repeat myself here. I have posted why they are not similar according to the Quran.

If Umar (r.a) had done that, surely people would have questioned him? We have instances of when a man questioned Umar about some cloth he recieved from the bait-al-maal.... We have an instance when an old woman questioned Umar (r.a) about him fixing the Mahr amount - in both cases he humbly answered his challengers, and in the case of the old woman, even corrected himself. . . so its not like they would keep quiet had he invented a ban on Mutaah.

I have read it is written in Tarikh Al-Tabari that Omran Ibn Savadeh came to Umar and gave him reports of people complaining about this decision of Umar.

Like this case in many cases, however, Umar was neither humble nor did he correct himself. It is not bad to refer to the most important example at this point: Umar and Abubakr were questioned seriously by Ahlulbayt, many of Sahabah, and many Muslims when they unfortunately ignored the will of Allah (swt) and his messenger (as) with respect to AhlulBayt and Ali (as) after the death of the prophet (as), the black story of Saghife in Islam which led to its pick some years later when Hussain (as) was killed wildly in Karbalaa by so called Muslims.

So all the sahabah that you dont like, didnt act according to sunnah?

In the first place, only those (from sahabah and Muslims) who loved the infallible Ahlul-Bayt and respected them acted according to sunnah and only those who followed infallible Ahlul-Bayt acted according to the prophet�s will. It is not the matter of what I and/or anybody personally like or not. This is what can be proved from Quran, sunnah, hadith, history and intellect.

None of sahabah, and generally none of Muslims, would be authorized to sit on the prophet�s chair and continue to guide people as his successor unless those who are given such authority by Allah (SWT) and his messenger (sawa). These authorized people are infallible Ahlul-Bayt. This was what the prophet (as) clarified in numerous different ways. There is no doubt that acting according to the Quran + loving and following infallible Ahlul-Bayt were the prophet �s will to Muslims. Pure sunnah of the prophet (as) could only be known through infallible Ahlulbayt (as).

Okay, perhaps not all - but what about the 10 sahabah that were given the glorious prediction of Jannah in thier lifetimes? They did not follow sunnah 100% ??? Umar is one of them.

1-      Umar did not obey the prophet (as) 100% even when the prophet was alive. How do you expect him following the sunnah 100% after prophet�s death?

2-      Umar was not following the sunnah 100% when he was questioned by Muslims and in some cases he used to correct himself. These prove that he had already deviated from the sunnah that in some cases he had to correct his deviation. How do you say following the sunnah was 100% fulfilled by him? N% according to sunnah + (100-N)% through corrections?!!!  How do you claim that even all deviations were recognized at all? And even if recognized, do you think he corrected all of them? If yes you are wrong:

3-      As I said before Umar and Abubakr and some other people were the ones who ignored obvious will of Allah (SWT) and his messenger (as) about Ali (as) for being the reference after the prophet for Muslims and people for not being led astray (like Haroon (as) in the absence of Moses(as) for bani Israel). Umar never corrected himself in this case while he knew what he was doing and the complaints did never change his mind in this case.

 And I do not understand your statement in bold at all. If u could kindly re-word it.  

The author of the article you quoted argued why other Caliphs after Umar did not reestablished Mutaah if it was Halal. I said that in such a case Ali (as) must have not even considered disestablishment of Umar valid because for Ali (as) the validity was only due to what the prophet established. So he did not need to reestablish anything. He just acted according to the sunnah of the prophet and we have not seen any report saying that he has punished an individual because of it.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 May 2009 at 10:51pm
member_profile.asp?PF=59082&FID=32 - myahya
I see Chrysalis(Thanks/Jazakallah for the effort) tried to give all kind of references about the harms and invalidity of Muta/Seeghay's practice amongst the true believers! but alas you are quite stubborn to see the light and that is a real tragedy!

I don't intend to get into this ping pong with you cuz it adds no value but rather I am posting the following article for your edification so it may work as crowbar to pry open your inner eyes...If the data has some validity then the so called Islamic Republic of Iran is being destroyed slowly by the legal seegay in that country!
I felt terribly shocked when I perused this.

Instead of the constant bad mouthing of the two fathers in laws  and the first son in law of the Prophet(s) look in the dire report of literall death death after all that time and think if you can!

I am sorry to say that if you can't refute the data then do your self a favor don't debate about this cuz the proof is in the pudding and it is rotten... my friend...I thought for a long and hard before posting cuz they are doing this suicide under the banner of Islam but IMHO their Islam is for the birds...

Sex, drugs and Islam


Political Islam returned to the world stage with Ruhollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution in Iran, which became the most aggressive patron of Muslim radicals outside its borders, including Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Until very recently, an oil-price windfall gave the Iranian state ample resources to pursue its agenda at home and abroad. How, then, should we explain an eruption of social pathologies in Iran such as drug addiction and prostitution, on a scale much worse than anything observed in the West? Contrary to conventional wisdom, it appears that Islamic theocracy promotes rather than represses social decay.

Iran is dying. The collapse of Iran's birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever. Demographers
have sought in vain to explain Iran's population implosion through family planning policies, or through social factors such as the rise of female literacy.

But quantifiable factors do not explain the sudden collapse of fertility. It seems that a spiritual decay has overcome Iran, despite best efforts of a totalitarian theocracy. Popular morale has deteriorated much faster than in the "decadent" West against which the Khomeini revolution was directed.

"Iran is dying for a fight," I wrote in 2007 (Please see http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak01.html - Why Iran is dying for a fight , November 13, 2007.) in the literal sense that its decline is so visible that some of its leaders think that they have nothing to lose.

Their efforts to isolate Iran from the cultural degradation of the American "great Satan" have produced social pathologies worse than those in any Western country. With oil at barely one-fifth of its 2008 peak price, they will run out of money some time in late 2009 or early 2010. Game theory would predict that Iran's leaders will gamble on a strategic long shot. That is not a comforting thought for Iran's neighbors.

Two indicators of Iranian morale are worth citing.

First, prostitution has become a career of choice among educated Iranian women. On February 3, the Austrian daily Der Standard published the results of two investigations conducted by the Tehran police, suppressed by the Iranian media. [1]

"More than 90% of Tehran's prostitutes have passed the university entrance exam, according to the results of one study, and more than 30% of them are registered at a university or studying," reports Der Standard. "The study was assigned to the Tehran Police Department and the Ministry of Health, and when the results were tabulated in early January no local newspaper dared to so much as mention them."

The Austrian newspaper added, "Eighty percent of the Tehran sex workers maintained that they pursue this career voluntarily and temporarily. The educated ones are waiting for better jobs. Those with university qualifications intend to study later, and the ones who already are registered at university mention the high tuition [fees] as their motive for prostitution ... they are content with their occupation and do not consider it a sin according to Islamic law(Seegay)."

There is an extensive trade in poor Iranian women who are trafficked to the Gulf states in huge numbers, as well as to Europe and Japan. "A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women," I wrote in a 2006 study of Iranian prostitution, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK21Ak01.html - Jihads and whores . Do read this link...

Prostitution as a response to poverty and abuse is one thing, but the results of this new study reflect something quite different. The educated women of Tehran choose prostitution in pursuit of upward mobility, as a way of sharing in the oil-based potlatch that made Tehran the world's hottest real estate market during 2006 and 2007.

A country is beaten when it sells its women, but it is damned when its women sell themselves. The popular image of the Iranian sex trade portrays tearful teenagers abused and cast out by impoverished parents. Such victims doubtless abound, but the majority of Tehran's prostitutes are educated women seeking affluence.

Only in the former Soviet Union after the collapse of communism in 1990 did educated women choose prostitution on a comparable scale, but under very different circumstances. Russians went hungry during the early 1990s as the Soviet economy dissolved and the currency collapsed. Today's Iranians suffer from shortages, but the data suggest that Tehran's prostitutes are not so much pushed into the trade by poverty as pulled into it by wealth.

A year ago I observed that prices for Tehran luxury apartments exceeded those in Paris, as Iran's kleptocracy distributed the oil windfall to tens of thousands of hangers-on of the revolution. $35 billion went missing from state oil funds, opposition newspapers charged at the time. Corruption evidently has made whores of Tehran's educated women. (Please see http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF24Ak03.html - Worst of times for Iran , June 24, 2008.)

Second, according to a recent report from the US Council on Foreign Relations, "Iran serves as the major transport hub for opiates produced by [Afghanistan], and the UN Office of Drugs and Crime estimates that Iran has as many as 1.7 million opiate addicts." That is, 5% of Iran's adult, non-elderly population of 35 million is addicted to opiates. That is an astonishing number, unseen since the peak of Chinese addiction during the 19th century. The closest American equivalent (from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health) found that 119,000 Americans reported using heroin within the prior month, or less than one-tenth of 1% of the non-elderly adult population.

Nineteenth-century China had comparable rates of opium addiction, after the British won two wars for the right to push the drug down China's throat. Post-communist Russia had comparable rates of prostitution, when people actually went hungry. Iran's startling rates of opium addiction and prostitution reflect popular demoralization, the implosion of an ancient culture in its encounter with the modern world. These pathologies arose not from poverty but wealth, or rather a sudden concentration of wealth in the hands of the political class. No other country in modern history has evinced this kind of demoralization.

For the majority of young Iranians, there is no way up, only a way out; 36% of Iran's youth aged 15 to 29 years want to emigrate, according to yet another unpublicized Iranian study, this time by the country's Education Ministry, Der Standard adds. Only 32% find the existing social norms acceptable, while 63% complain about unemployment, the social order or lack of money.

As I reported in the cited essay, the potlatch for the political class is balanced by widespread shortages for ordinary Iranians. This winter, widespread natural gas shortages left tens of thousands of households without heat.

The declining morale of the Iranian population helps make sense of its galloping demographic decline. Academic demographers have tried to explain collapsing fertility as a function of rising female literacy. The problem is that the Iranian regime lies about literacy data, and has admitted as much recently.

In a recent paper entitled "Education and the World's Most Raid Fertility Decline in Iran [2], American and Iranian demographers observe:
A first analysis of the Iran 2006 census results shows a sensationally low fertility level of 1.9 for the whole country and only 1.5 for the Tehran area (which has about 8 million people) ... A decline in the TFR [total fertility rate] of more than 5.0 in roughly two decades is a world record in fertility decline. This is even more surprising to many observers when one considers that it happened in one of the most Islamic societies. It forces the analyst to reconsider many of the usual stereotypes about religious fertility differentials.
The census points to a continued fall in fertility, even from today's extremely low levels, the paper maintains.

Most remarkable is the collapse of rural fertility in tandem with urban fertility, the paper adds:
The similarity of the transition in both urban and rural areas is one the main features of the fertility transition in Iran. There was a considerable gap between the fertility in rural and urban areas, but the TFR in both rural and urban areas continued to decline by the mid-1990s, and the gap has narrowed substantially. In 1980, the TFR in rural areas was 8.4 while that of urban areas was 5.6. In other words, there was a gap of 2.8 children between rural and urban areas. In 2006, the TFR in rural and urban areas was 2.1 and 1.8, respectively (a difference of only 0.3 children).
What the professors hoped to demonstrate is that as rural literacy levels in Iran caught up with urban literacy levels, the corresponding urban and rural fertility rates also converged. That is a perfectly reasonable conjecture whose only flaw is that the data on which it is founded were faked by the Iranian regime.

The Iranian government's official data claim literacy percentage levels in the high 90s for urban women and in the high 80s for rural women. That cannot be true, for Iran's Literacy Movement Organization admitted last year (according to an Agence-France Presse report of May 8, 2008) that 9,450,000 Iranians are illiterate of a population of 71 million (or an adult population of about 52 million). This suggests far higher rates of illiteracy than in the official data.

A better explanation of Iran's population implosion is that the country has undergone an existential crisis comparable to encounters of Amazon or Inuit tribes with modernity. Traditional society demands submission to the collective. Once the external constraints are removed, its members can shift from the most extreme forms of modesty to the other extreme of sexual license. Khomeini's revolution attempted to retard the disintegration of Persian society, but it appears to have accelerated the process.

Modernity implies choice, and the efforts of the Iranian mullahs to prolong the strictures of traditional society appear to have backfired. The cause of Iran's collapsing fertility is not literacy as such, but extreme pessimism about the future and an endemic materialism that leads educated Iranian women to turn their own sexuality into a salable commodity.

Theocracy subjects religion to a political test; it is hard for Iranians to repudiate the regime and remain pious, for religious piety and support for political Islam are inseparable, as a recent academic study documented from survey data [3].

As in the decline of communism, what follows on the breakdown of a state ideology is likely to be nihilism. Iran is a dying country, and it is very difficult to have a rational dialogue with a nation all of whose available choices terminate in oblivion.
By Spengler
Italics/ Mine
[1] Der Standard, http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1233586592607 - Die Wahrheit hinter der islamischen Fassade
.

[2] http://epc2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80880 - Education and the World's Most Raid Fertility Decline in Iran
.


[3] http://www.luc.edu/faculty/gtezcur/files/TezcurJSSR.pdf - Religiosity and Islamic Rule in Iran , by Gunes Murat Tezcur and Tagh Azadarmaki.



-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 17 May 2009 at 7:39pm
Though We have sahi hadiths about Mutah being abolished and there is evidence from Quran which support this. Shia will buy this as they do not believe in present Quran, as the Quran that they believe in is with their hidden imam.
so I will not use any of Ahley Sunnah source, here is what their imams say about Mutah.
قال أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه:
( حرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم خيبر لحوم الحمر الأهلية ونكاح المتعة) انظر (التهذيب 2/186)، (الاستبصار 2/142) ، (وسائل الشيعة 14/441).


Amirul Mua'minin (as) said: Prophet (s.a.w) forbidden on the day of khaiber the meat of donkeys and the mut'ah marriages.
(At-tahdheeb 2/186, Al-Istbsaar 2/142 & Wasael Al-Shia 14/144)




عن عبد الله بن سنان قال سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: (لا تدنس نفسك بـها) (بحار الأنوار 100/318).

It was narrated by Abdullah Bin Senan said : I asked Abu Abdullah about Mut'ah and he said: "Don't filthy (defile) your self with it"
(Bihaar Al-Anwar 100/318).




عن عمار قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لي ولسليمان بن خالد: (قد حرمت عليكما المتعة) (فروع الكافي 2/48)، (وسائل الشيعة 14/450).

Narrated by A'maar: Abu Abdullah said to me and to Suliman Bin Khaled: "I made Mut'ah Haram on you"
(Furoo AlKafi 2/48 & Wasaeel Shia 14/450).





وكان عليه السلام يوبخ أصحابه ويحذرهم من المتعة فقال: أما يستحي أحدكم أن يرى موضع فيحمل ذلك على صالحي إخوانه وأصحابه؟ (الفروع 2/44)، (وسائل الشيعة 1/450).

Also he (Abu Abdullah) used to rebuke and warn his companions against mut'ah �� (Furoo 2/44), (Wasael Alshia 1/450)





ولما سأل علي بن يقطين أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن المتعة أجابه:

( ما أنت وذاك؟ قد أغناك الله عنها ) (الفروع 2/43)، الوسائل (14/449)
.

Ali bin Yaqteen asked Aba Hassan about Mut'ah and he answered : "What is that and You (In Arabic it means what has that got to do with you) Allah had compensated you with something much better" (he meant legal marraige) (Furoo 2/43), (Wasael Al-shia 14/449).





عبد الله بن عمير قال لأبي جعفر عليه السلام (يسرك أن نساءك وبناتك وأخواتك وبنات عمك يفعلن؟ -أي يتمتعن- فأعرض عنه أبو جعفر عليه السلام حين ذكر نساءه وبنات عمه) (الفروع 2/42)، (التهذيب 2/186)

Abdullah Bin Umair said to Abi Ja'far (as) :Is it acceptable to you that your women, daughters, sisters, daughters of your aunties do it (Mut'ah)? Abu Ja'far rebuked him when he mentioned his women and daughters of his aunties.
(Al-Furoo 2/42 & At-tahdheeb 2/186)

The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: " Certainly, Allah, Almighty and Glorious, dislikes or curses any man or woman whose intention of divorce or marriage is merely tasting the pleasure of it."

Al-Kafi, vol. 6, p. 54



Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 12:26am
Sign*Reader, first of all, I have recognized that you rely pretty much on the news and specially the way an author may analyze them and you may make/change your belief based on them. We should keep in mind that such news and the analysis behind them could be designed intentionally to weaken the consensus in Muslims and to depart between Shia and Sunni.

Secondly, I am not saying that there are no such problems in Iran. More or less there might be. However, what is its relation with Shia belief system? I know that the majority in Iran is Shia, but how do you know if the majority of them are really practicing it in their everyday life? Your argument is similar to the argument of a non-Muslim in this forum listing some problems in one Islamic society and starts disproving Islam because of such a list. How do you reply to such argumentation?

Furthermore, a prostitute by definition is one whose job is to accept payment for sex acts. If one is doing so and thinks or claims that her work is Temporary Marriage in Shia she is absolutely wrong. She is deceiving herself and others. Even one who abuse marriage is doing Haram in Shia beleife. Fortunately, Fatah-Momin brought the evidence from Al-Kafi:

The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: "Certainly, Allah, Almighty and Glorious, dislikes or curses any man or woman whose intention of divorce or marriage is merely tasting the pleasure of it."

Therefore, even if in Iran some people are practicing so they are not following Ahlul-Bayt and Shia 12 Imams. This is their fault but not the Ahlul-Bayt problem.



Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 12:28am
Fatah-Momin: Shia will buy this as they do not believe in present Quran, as the Quran that they believe in is with their hidden imam.  

Is this really your view of Shia?!! Who has given you such a strange wrong point of view?!!! There is no several Quran in Islam but one and that is the present Quran and we believe that it is complete and we believe in every word of it as word of Allah swt.

The ahadith you quoted are saying that it is abolished for certain days or people who have asked Imams. None of them proves a generality in abolishment. They are other ahadith in Shia and Sunni that approve it. When there is such controversial subject in ahadith, then the experts should study ALL ahadith about that subject from ALL sects of Islam and make a decision with the light of Quran and a professional analyzing of ALL ahadith in Islam from Shia and Sunni. If the Olamaa and experts of Shia claims that Mutaah is not an absolute and general Haram like that of "Wine" then they should be able to prove it.



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 9:22pm
My posts are in moderation que, I do not know why,If any Shia dispute my claim,  I welcome on on one debate, and I promise not to use my language or proof from Ahley Sunnah, I will only post from Shia source in Shia own words with out any interpolation, I will establish that Shia do not believe in Quran as the uncorrupted last testament of Allah[swt]. Now back to the topic at hand here is another proof fromShia book that Mutah is fronication.

Book: "Wasael ush shia", chapter Nikah.
Author: Hurr al Amele.

Ali ibn Abe Taleeb (radi Allahu anhu) said:

"Prohet (sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam) forbade meat of domestic donkey and mutah marriage in the day of khaybar".


Author of book tried to explain it like taqiyah, that shows us that he accepted that narration as authentic.



http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=1325">Attached%20Image



Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 24 May 2009 at 1:49am
Shia invitation to group Mutah/Fronication
Attached%20Image

Attached%20Image
 


 



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 24 May 2009 at 7:23am
Salaams, all

As far as Qur'aan is concerned, there is not a single verse or command for Muta'a, which simply means having fun. The word does not even mean marriage.

Referring to Fatah-Momin's post containing a note in Urdu, Qur'aan does not even give any conditions for that.

Qur'aan speaks of Nikah and related words such as
Quote
فانكحوهن
and there is no word and no verse to show that one could have fun or a marriage for a fixed period.

4:24 does not allow Muta'a at all and there is nothing that suggests that Muta'a can be done for a certain term or period.

Salaams
BMZ




-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 24 May 2009 at 10:28am
member_profile.asp?PF=52227&FID=32 - Fatah-Momin
  Thanks for the post........
It is about time that these scumbags be considered as non Islamic sect!
And we criticize our American friends for the orgies....


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 24 May 2009 at 8:41pm
Shia can marry their Step sisters.

http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=649">Attached%20Image

I am restricted to one post a day and that post is on moderation que, if moderators allow I will only post Shia source in shia words and will NOT interpolate with my input member can read and judge for themselves, IF sHIA ARE KAFIR OR NOT


Posted By: seekshidayath
Date Posted: 25 May 2009 at 6:33pm
 
Good work Fatah-Momin !
 
Its good to refer them with there own sources


-------------
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 25 May 2009 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by Fatah-Momin Fatah-Momin wrote:

Shia can marry their Step sisters.

http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=649">Attached%20Image

I am restricted to one post a day and that post is on moderation que, if moderators allow I will only post Shia source in shia words and will NOT interpolate with my input member can read and judge for themselves, IF sHIA ARE KAFIR OR NOT


Hello, Fatah-Momin

You may quote above sort of material when you are debating a Shia Muslim but please do not title as you did on the top of your post, basing on their ahaadith.

Basing on those unreliable collections of their ahadith, we cannot call them Kafir, as we too have many ridiculous ahaadith in our collections. Ahaadith do not determine whether one is a Muslim or Kafir.

Salaams
BMZ



-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 25 May 2009 at 9:33pm
BMZ it is good to know that you feel pain for your Shia brothers, I am yet to debate a Shia who will claim any of their hadiths to be weak or Sahi. You are first person to claim that, it is odd as you have not claimed that you are Shia. Well for your further knowledge here is link to shia most reliable site from where I got the screen shot. Female child from step mother is a step sister [if you dont know] http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/fatima_the_gracious/17.htm

Again like I said I will not post my opinions I am just posting images from Shia books and sources

According to this, a Mahram Male May it be Father, brother, Uncle can see a female in nude front and back without desire for lust.
Toohfa Nimaz(salah) Jafria Page#292

  http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=630">Attached%20Image 1126



 Reduced 20% http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=631">Attached%20Image


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 10:29pm
Fatah-Momin, as I already said, Shia strongly believe that Quran is not corrupted and you can not prove the reverse. Bringing one or several ahadith from Shia sources is not enough and does not prove your claim. I can also bring some ahadith from Sunni references which say that Quran is corrupted. However, a detailed study in Quran and ALL ahadith proves that Quran in the present form is complete. That is it. And if you bring any hadith from any source, I would say that hadith is corrupted not Quran.

Also, the two permissions for marriage with sisters that you quoted (without bringing the reference!) do not prove that these are allowed in Shia. May be in Sunni a single hadith from a specific or famous book is enough to prove its claim, but this is not the way of decision making in Shia. In Shia a comprehensive professional study on Quran, history and hadith is needed before coming up with a claim.



Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 26 May 2009 at 10:33pm
BMZ 4:24 does not allow Muta'a at all

What do you mean?! What does it allow then?


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 7:25am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

BMZ 4:24 does not allow Muta'a at all

What do you mean?! What does it allow then?


It allows marriage!

The topic in the section 4:1-31 is all about marrying women, not having Muta'a with women.

It will be dishonest of anyone, who tries to justify the word Muta'a by taking Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum 
فمااستمتعم  to mean "You can do Muta'a" at all.

Please allow me to quote a few translations of 4:24 here:

Yusuf Ali: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

file:///C:%5CUsers%5CUser%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml - -

Shakir:
http://islamawakened.com/quran/4/24/default.htm - And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

Note that Shakir was himself a Shia and translated the passage truthfully.


Sarwar, a Shia: You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls. This is the decree of God. Besides these, it is lawful for you to marry other women if you pay their dower, maintain chastity and do not commit indecency. If you marry them for the appointed time you must pay their dowries.

(Note: Sarwar's translation is distorted. There is nothing in Arabic which shows, "If you marry them for the appointed time " in Qur'aan.

If you read the translation and commentary by Aqa Pooya and Ahmed Ali, it is the same distortion. Shakir did not. He commented in his translation that he had not translated Qur'aan to please anyone but only Allah.

The point is that Allah in Qur'aan talks about the institution of Marriage, not Muta'a.

There is nothing in Qur'aan about Muta'a.

Salaams
BMZ

http://islamawakened.com/quran/4/24/default.htm -

-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 7:39am
Originally posted by Fatah-Momin Fatah-Momin wrote:

BMZ it is good to know that you feel pain for your Shia brothers, I am yet to debate a Shia who will claim any of their hadiths to be weak or Sahi. You are first person to claim that, it is odd as you have not claimed that you are Shia.


For your information, I do not belong to any sect. I am neither a Sunni nor a Shia.  I gave up on every sect when I learned, studied and understood the simple Message of Qur'aan, which the Arabs of the 7th Century understood it so well that all of them followed, obeyed the Prophet and accepted Islam, without the help of any Tafsirs, Imams and Ahaadith.

Salaams
BMZ



-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 6:20pm
Its true that division in Islamic belief came later, and such divisions are haram according to the Quran. The Quran is our ultimate source, we only can look for a Hadith when we need, in other words where details are needed to know that are not mentioned in the Quran.
Now, we know that from the topic of divorce and how it is addressed in the Quran, it cannot be possible that a book that shows that how unfavorable it is in the sight of Allah that a divorce take place, how it can be that a temporary marriage which will involve a divorce can be permitted?
Also it is more clear in Quran that how responsible a husband and father should be toward his wife, and children that it cannot say otherwise to allow temporary relationships which will create same responsibilities.
 
Islam through Quran teachs us logic and resposibilities, and temporary marriage is anything but that.
 
I have lived in Iran, and heard of it when I was there, never witnessed it. Heard that Imam Khumani has said it to be better than commiting zinna by the young. That may be true when we see where many young men do go in places like Pakistan to commit zinna. But in my opinion, its one social evil traded with another one.
Like I said, temorary or drive through marriage could not have been allowed when we see that how hard, discouraged, and lengthy the process of divorce is in Islam as mentioned in the Quran.
 
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:52am
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Its true that division in Islamic belief came later, and such divisions are haram according to the Quran. The Quran is our ultimate source, we only can look for a Hadith when we need, in other words where details are needed to know that are not mentioned in the Quran.
Now, we know that from the topic of divorce and how it is addressed in the Quran, it cannot be possible that a book that shows that how unfavorable it is in the sight of Allah that a divorce take place, how it can be that a temporary marriage which will involve a divorce can be permitted?
Also it is more clear in Quran that how responsible a husband and father should be toward his wife, and children that it cannot say otherwise to allow temporary relationships which will create same responsibilities.
 
Islam through Quran teachs us logic and resposibilities, and temporary marriage is anything but that.
 
I have lived in Iran, and heard of it when I was there, never witnessed it. Heard that Imam Khumani has said it to be better than commiting zinna by the young. That may be true when we see where many young men do go in places like Pakistan to commit zinna. But in my opinion, its one social evil traded with another one.
Like I said, temorary or drive through marriage could not have been allowed when we see that how hard, discouraged, and lengthy the process of divorce is in Islam as mentioned in the Quran.
 
Hasan


Exactly. Ameen to that

BMZ



-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 30 May 2009 at 12:21am
BMZ: It allows marriage!

Shia also says that it allows marriage but Mut'a marriage. Permanent marriage was already and completely allowed in previous verses from 1 to 23. It seems meaningless to be re-allowed here! And the history says that Mut'a marriage used to be performed in the time of the prophet so that we can not say there is no such a thing at all. The question is whether it is generally banned by the prophet or not.  

Furthermore, the root of the word Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum is the same as Mut'a and literally means benefiting from and enjoying. You said that Nikah should be used for marriage. if yes, why this sentence uses the root of Mut'ah instead of Nikah. If I am right, you mean that this sentence is talking about "benefiting from" and "enjoying" in permanent marriage. Ok, if it is so, the sentence says that "give your permanent wives their dowries if you benefit from your permanent wives and enjoy them". What does it mean? Every Muslim man should give their permanent wives dowries per each enjoyment? Which kind of them? all of them? And which occasion of each kind of enjoyment in a permanent mutual life? Can you clarify these issues?

Regarding the translations, we do not support any translation which adds a word or a sentence to Quran.



Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 30 May 2009 at 12:22am
Hasan: we know that from the topic of divorce and how it is addressed in the Quran, it cannot be possible that a book that shows that how unfavorable it is in the sight of Allah that a divorce take place, how it can be that a temporary marriage which will involve a divorce can be permitted?

It seems that Shia ulamaa in history could not conclude that "divorce" can be defined in Mut'a marriage. May be because in a divorce the two people or one of them want to give up and get rid off their permanent partner for any reason. This is meaningless in a Mut'a marriage.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 30 May 2009 at 7:52am
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

BMZ: It allows marriage!

Shia also says that it allows marriage but Mut'a marriage. Permanent marriage was already and completely allowed in previous verses from 1 to 23. It seems meaningless to be re-allowed here! And the history says that Mut'a marriage used to be performed in the time of the prophet so that we can not say there is no such a thing at all. The question is whether it is generally banned by the prophet or not.  

Furthermore, the root of the word Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum is the same as Mut'a and literally means benefiting from and enjoying. You said that Nikah should be used for marriage. if yes, why this sentence uses the root of Mut'ah instead of Nikah. If I am right, you mean that this sentence is talking about "benefiting from" and "enjoying" in permanent marriage. Ok, if it is so, the sentence says that "give your permanent wives their dowries if you benefit from your permanent wives and enjoy them". What does it mean? Every Muslim man should give their permanent wives dowries per each enjoyment? Which kind of them? all of them? And which occasion of each kind of enjoyment in a permanent mutual life? Can you clarify these issues?

Regarding the translations, we do not support any translation which adds a word or a sentence to Quran.



Shias can say whatever they like. I am just saying that Muta'a is wrong and Haram. They can call it temporary marriage or a marriage for fun or marriage for a certain period, etc. It is still not a proper marriage.

Muta'a is totally against the commands in Qur'aan.

If one marries four women, then the dowry or Mehr (Ujur) for each will be due for one time anyway and the four will be one's  wives forever, unless and until one wishes to divorce them or they wish to leave one under Khulaa, if they are not happy and want to go their own way.


BMZ


-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: myahya
Date Posted: 31 May 2009 at 9:23pm
BMZ: If one marries four women, then the dowry or Mehr (Ujur) for each will be due for one time anyway and the four will be one's  wives forever, unless and until one wishes to divorce them or they wish to leave one under Khulaa, if they are not happy and want to go their own way.

What I can understand from what you said is that if the verse "Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum �" in 4:24 comes back to the permanent marriage, then the dowry (Mehr or Ujur) must be completely given due to the very first enjoyment. Because the sentence orders to give the dowry when you enjoy or benefit from them, a must


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 31 May 2009 at 10:58pm
Originally posted by myahya myahya wrote:

BMZ: If one marries four women, then the dowry or Mehr (Ujur) for each will be due for one time anyway and the four will be one's  wives forever, unless and until one wishes to divorce them or they wish to leave one under Khulaa, if they are not happy and want to go their own way.

What I can understand from what you said is that if the verse "Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum �" in 4:24 comes back to the permanent marriage, then the dowry (Mehr or Ujur) must be completely given due to the very first enjoyment. Because the sentence orders to give the dowry when you enjoy or benefit from them, a must


myahya,

I wish to clarify why I brought up and wrote part of the verse
"Fa-mas-tam-ta'atum" in my post. The verse is about permanent marriage, not Muta'a.

Our Shia brothers take that to mean, "So, you can do Muta'a" and if you read Farsi and Urdu translations by Shia translators, you will know that they use it to justify Muta'a.

If you can read Urdu, please read the translation by Maulana Firman Ali.

I should have made this clearer in my OP about this matter.

Salaams
BMZ



-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Fatah-Momin
Date Posted: 02 June 2009 at 8:50am


myahya

Any time you want evidence from Shia books and source of highest eminence[among shia faith] Inshallah I can post hundreds and hundreds of images to establish beyond doubt that Shia do not believe in Muslim Quran as uncorrupted last testament of Allah[swt].  


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 02 June 2009 at 3:35pm

 Muta'a is not allowed in Islam.

  http://answering-christianity.com/muta_forbidden_with_shias.htm - Muta marriage is forbidden according also to the



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net