Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SoRoUsH last won the day on April 16

SoRoUsH had the most liked content!


About SoRoUsH

  • Rank
    Level 5 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,430 profile views
  1. سلام I'm currently reading Reason Unbound by Mohammed Azadpur, and I do recommend it, if you have a background in philosophy. However, as I was reading, I reached a page in which Averroes's response to Ghazali is summarized quite well. So, I decided to take a picture and attach it to this post. Here it is:
  2. I have, the four gospels, Epistle of James, and a few books from the Old Testament. I have two different Bible Apps on my phone. Bible is available everywhere here.
  3. I still don't see any authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) in your post. Wassalam
  4. Nope. Muta'a can be as short as one session of intercourse, or as an authentic narration states, as short as an erection or two. It is a relationship, and it can be either very short or long, depending on the agreement between two people. Everything I've said, I've supported with authentic narrations. If you wish to counter my arguments, please do so using authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). There are rules to Muta'a. Sure. But not strict rules. For a Muta'a to be legal, only two things are required, a determined dowry and a fixed time. That is all. If the couple chooses, they can determine certain criteria for their relationship. And when/if they choose criteria, they need to abide by them. (And for a virgin girl to be permitted to do Muta'a, the permission of her father is necessary.) Unfortunately, like others, so far, who've argued against my arguments, you've presented no solid narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) to support your position. I understand the urge to protect conventional, yet baseless, beliefs. I understand that it's easier to go with the flow than to properly study an issue. So, I understand the resistance to my arguments. I understand the resistance to the authentic narrations of our Imams (عليه السلام). I see the constant mental gymnastics, and I get it. However, until you support your opinions and positions with authentic narrations of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), then your viewpoints, regardless of how strongly you feel about them, are mere conjectures, planted and nourished by cultural norms and contexts, influenced by non-Shia traditions, and dissociated from the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). So, either support your position by presenting authentic narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) or introspect and figure out why, even though there's no religious support for it, you hold such strong opinions.
  5. Correction: Just in case the context of my post didn't make my typo obvious, his thiqa is not clearly established.
  6. I've already gone over this narration twice, and mentioned that its matn alone is nonsense and contradictory against plenty of other authentic narrations on Muta'a. This narration originates from Nawaadir of al-Ash'ari (أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى‏). It is not found in any of our main four books. Neither Kulayni, nor Toosi, nor Saduq have placed it in their books. As far as I know the tareeq of Nawaadir cannot be established. So, in other words, although the narrators of this chain are acceptable, the book itself is questionable. This narration is also from Nawaadir, and it is not found in any book from Kulayni, Toosi, Saduq, or Mufid. Plus, the thiqa of القاسم بن محمد is clearly established. He's a Waqifi. And yet again, this narration is from Nawaadir, and not cited in any of our four books or by any of our classical scholars. (I.e. Kulayni, Toosi, Saduq, or Mufid.) Plus, both عبد الملك ابن عمر and محمد بن مروان are majhool. I'm sure you can notice a pattern here. All of these unacceptable narrations originate in the book of Nawaadir. Nothing similar to them is found in any other classical hadith books. No classical scholar cites these narrations in his book(s).
  7. No. All we know is that he didn't need it. We can make a generalization and say that some people do not need Muta'a. What we can't do is to give a reason as to why he didn't need a Muta'a. That narration does not give us a reason. To say he didn't need it because he was married or could get married is an assumption. In fact, this is precisely what I said before. "All we can say is that for that person that the Imam (عليه السلام) was talking to, it wasn't needed. All we can conclude from that is that sometimes, for some people, it's not needed. That is all. Everything else is conjecture." You didn't properly understand my point. Clearly, and obviously, we can't state that every time the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) speak to one person, whatever they say is only for that person. And that is certainly not what I said. Please re-read my post. We do not have any authentic narrations teaching us that Muta'a can ever be Makrooh or Haram. And we can't speculate. Just because we do not know or cannot think of a benefit, it doesn't imply that there's none. What about a young married man, who'll be away from his wife, for a long period of time due to his job? How shall he approach his healthy sexual desires? Masturbation is not an option. Suppression of healthy desires? Most people, due to their misconceptions, may agree with the abstinence and suppression of desires option. However, historically, even the Sunnis agree that Muta'a was permitted by the Prophet, during long expeditions, when a man was away from his wife. Please understand, I'm not suggesting that married men, nowadays, should run and do Muta'a. Don't misunderstand me. Currently, in our times, we're too deep in and drowning in misconceptions and false presumptions when it comes to sex and sexual relationships. Nowadays, a man would risk breaking up his family unit by doing Muta'a, and we know that breaking up a family unit is a horrendous misdeed. One's family always comes first. By breaking up a family unit, we could put the health of children in that family at risk. So, let's be clear about that. That being said, we cannot and ought not to reject that Muta'a was recommended by the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) and it was the Sunna of The Prophet. It is not disgraceful to men or women. Nowadays, because of our religious ignorance and religiously-baseless cultural upbringings we've come to view Muta'a negatively. If our cultures and societies were not so puritanical and extreme about sex, if our cultures and societies were not so strongly influenced by non-Shia beliefs and traditions, we'd be having a very different discussion now. In my following post, I'll show why those narrations aren't acceptable.
  8. Really? You found it odd that I brought up Descartes? You asked me about certainty in my own existence. What exactly were you expecting? A narration? All narrations that exist, directly and indirectly, point to the existence of individual human being. How exactly did you expect me to present a narration regarding the certainty of my own existence? I find it odd that you found it odd. Let's try it another way. Find one, just one, authentic narration from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) that, directly or indirectly, hints to the idea that I may not exist. Or even better, find one verse that, directly or indirectly, hints to the idea that individual human beings, or I, may not exist. Of course I am certain that I exist! Every narration, every verse, points to and teaches me and confirms my existence. By bringing up Descartes, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you had some philosophical angle in your sophistry. I don't understand your angle anymore. You may be lost in your own sophistry. The "I" in Descartes is the thinking subject. What's that thinking subject? The being that's doing the thinking. And if it's not the "I" that's doing the thinking, then who is? A dog or a goat that seems to be accurately reflecting the thoughts of Descartes's sophisticated human thoughts? My Imam Descartes? Seriously? This will be my last post in this thread. I am a thinking thing, and as authentic narrations and Quranic verses show, healthy thinking and sound judgments are linked to a healthy heart. Certainty (yaqeen) is a matter of the heart (قلب). Your confusion may be stemming from an incorrect assumption that thinking (in Islam) is connected to the head or that عقل means head or brain. Even the statement, "I think, therefore, I am" doesn't link thinking to the head or brain, though Descartes himself did. Anyways, I am done with this discussion. I've said what I needed and wanted to say. Wassalam
  9. I will not speculate on the nature of God. I used to teach Philosophy 101 and Descartes's skepticism and meditations. I think, therefore, I am. I am certain that God exists. It's a matter of the heart and not something that can be ascertained rationally; and the history of philosophy demonstrates this. My knowledge in every sense is limited. My knowledge is based on my circumstances, contexts, cultures, experiences, nurturing and etc. My knowledge is limited, because as a human, I am limited, physically and mentally. My knowledge is limited because I am limited to a specific time and space. It's always possible and perhaps even probable that I am wrong. Yes. However, the possibility of me being wrong doesn't affect the possibility of the counter-argument being right. There could be a third argument that's correct. If he does, then his post certainly doesn't show it. You're right. I apologize and am sorry. It's just that fancy, poetic, yet meaningless and unexamined statements have become a pet peeve of mine. These fancy "mystical" statements result in some sort of new age spirituality, baseless, and not grounded in God's revelation. This is why I always repeatedly and continuously ask for solid and acceptable narrations from Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). Sophistry is fancy and stimulating, but it doesn't help one spiritually.
  10. You've completely changed OP's position. What you're saying is not what the OP said. He was clearly talking about God being everything, and his wave analogies made that very clear. Now, you're talking about God knowing. Knowing is not being. Knowing X doesn't entail being X. Second, we can agree that God knows everything and that God is present everywhere. However, I wouldn't deduce that knowing implies presence. Again, this is not what the OP claimed. He didn't equate knowledge with presence. My argument is neither against God's knowledge of everything nor God's presence everywhere. Ok. Now you've crossed into the domain of absurdity. I exist. I know of myself. I know of my existence. God exists. He knows of me. He knows of my existence. All of these statements are true. However, they do not imply that only God knows me. Or that me knowing me is actually God knowing me. Nonsense! My knowledge of myself is limited. God's knowledge of me isn't. Me knowing anything would be limited. God knowing everything has no limits. I know my cat. My brother knows my cat. Therefore, my brother is me knowing my cat. Nonsense! Sure. Again, this has nothing to with God being. Being and knowing are not the same. God knows the najis item. God is present where the najis item is present. But God is not the najis item. This is an important distinction. What you're saying is that God knows everything, and His knowledge, including that of Himself, is one. Sure! I am not arguing against this position. Although we ought to be careful not to make such claims without relying on acceptable narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). We know nothing and can know nothing about the nature of God, outside of Ahlul Bayt's teachings. This is not what the OP said. I recommend you work on your reading comprehension, and then re-read OP's post. Your entire post was a big red herring! Wassalam
  11. This is not correct. Think of all the najis things. So, your very first statement and premise is incorrect. Incorrect. Allah is the only creator. Everything else, including Ruh, is the created. The creator and the created are not and cannot be identical. These statements are very Trinitarian-like, except instead of three, you have two. Allah is one. He's above the lowly aspects of Earthly, limited, existence. Everything that is created is limited in one form or another. He is unlimited and infinite. The finite and the infinite cannot be identical. These poetic statements of yours may sound fancy and pretty, but we should be very careful to not let them mesmerise us into believing nonsense.
  12. Sure! There's no objection against this view. Food, sex, Muta'a, sleeping, speaking, they're all better in moderation.
  13. We don't know and we can't make assumptions. It's that simple. People make assumptions based on their own biased conceptions and opinions. This is an assumption, not obvious from the narration. All we can say is that for that person that the Imam (عليه السلام) was talking to, it wasn't needed. All we can conclude from that is that sometimes, for some people, it's not needed. That is all. Everything else is conjecture. First, I'd like to point out that you constantly make assumptions. Your opinions aren't based on the actual narrations, rather your own hopes and desires. Keep in mind there are 46 chapters dedicated to Muta'a in Wasail al-Shia. So, there are plenty of solid narrations on this topic, and we don't have any excuses to make baseless assumptions or hold baseless opinions. It's not ever a disgrace because it was the sunna of the Prophets. The Prophet would not do what would be disgraceful to women. Please try to understand this. The change of status could have fiqhi implications not social implications. The fiqh related to slave-women is different than the fiqh related to free women. There's no disgrace involved in this matter. By informing us that their status is that of a slave-woman, the Imams (عليه السلام) make the practical aspects of the relationship, the matters of fiqh, clear. Remember: the Imams (عليه السلام) would not recommend Muta'a, if it was disgraceful to women. The Prophet (عليه السلام) would not do Muta'a, if it was disgraceful to women. It's not, both from the Rijal perspective and from the matn perspective, for the reasons that I already explained. Muta'a is a recommended Sunna. It cannot be disgraceful to women. Recommended Sunna cannot be disgraceful to women. His opinion doesn't seem to based on solid narrations from Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). His reasoning and position could've been influenced by his environment and circumstances. We ought to base our views on solid narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). So, until I see a legitimate and acceptable narration that supports or verifies his opinion, I will continue to follow what is very clearly laid out in solid authentic narrations. Please only focus on solid acceptable narrations. Context and taqiyya may have played a strong role in fabricating narrations against Muta'a. I won't comment on weak narrations. Please only focus on solid narrations from the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام).
  14. We have no idea why the Imam said this, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. The lesson of this narration is the duration part of it. We can say that sometimes, some people, don't need Muta'a. But we can't assume and don't know when and who and why. This is incorrect. Those narrations do no justify this conclusion. You've interpreted them in this way, because of what you would like to believe, and not because of what the narrations actually say. The more accurate way to understand those narrations is that the status of a woman in Muta'a is that of a slave-woman, and based on other narrations, this is relevant because it implies that a Muta'a partner does not count as a Nikah wife. Moreover, it implies that in other issues of fiqh, such as inheritance, the status of a Muta'a partner is that of a slave-woman, and fiqh should be applied accordingly. At no point, these narrations justify your interpretation. I don't know where you're getting this idea from. It's incorrect. In fact, we have narrations from Imam Ridha (عليه السلام) that guide us to only do Muta'a with Muslims and Mu'min women. Other narrations guide us to do Muta'a with a trustworthy woman of a good character. وَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنِ الرِّضَا ع فِي حَدِيثٍ أَنَّهُ سُئِلَ عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ فَقَالَ لَا يَنْبَغِي لَكَ أَنْ تَتَزَوَّجَ إِلَّا بِمُؤْمِنَةٍ أَوْ مُسْلِمَةٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ قَالَ سَأَلَ رَجُلٌ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ الرِّضَا ع وَ أَنَا أَسْمَعُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ يَتَزَوَّجُ الْمَرْأَةَ مُتْعَةً وَ يَشْتَرِطُ عَلَيْهَا أَنْ لَا يَطْلُبَ وَلَدَهَا إِلَى أَنْ قَالَ فَقَالَ لَا يَنْبَغِي لَكَ أَنْ تَتَزَوَّجَ إِلَّا بِمُؤْمِنَةٍ أَوْ مُسْلِمَةٍ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ يَقُولُ الزَّانِي لا يَنْكِحُ إِلَّا زانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَ الزَّانِيَةُ لا يَنْكِحُها إِلَّا زانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ وَ حُرِّمَ ذلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (النور -: 3 -) محمد بن يعقوب ، عن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن عبدالله بن أبي يعفور ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : سألته عن المرأة ولا يدري ما حالها ، أيتزوجها الرجل متعة ؟ قال : يتعرض لها ، فإن أجابته إلى الفجور فلا يفعل The sanad for this narration isn't acceptable, so I won't care for or comment on it. Same as above. The sanad for this narration isn't acceptable, so I won't care for or comment on it. Considering that the issue of Muta'a was controversial, it's very plausible that narrations were fabricated to discourage people from it. Then of course, there's the issue of taqiyya, since Muta'a was rejected by the non-Shia of the time. So, you ought to pay attention to the sanad. Even the matn of this weak narration is nonsensical. It's clearly either fabricated or stated in Taqiyya. The Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) do not recommend what is disgraceful. And they've recommended Muta'a. Nothing disgraceful would be the Sunna of The Prophet. And Muta'a was the Sunna of The Prophet. This isn't accurate. It says it's not recommended because it may make the girl's parents feel defective. So, if the father is fine with it, there's absolutely no problem with it. And there are many narrations supporting this view. Not at all. All of your conclusions are unjustified, as I explained above. Source?
  15. Now, someone could justifiably argue against my above-mentioned argument. They could say, the narration that I stated in my previous post only discusses a man, who has a free woman, who wants to do Muta'a with a الْمَمْلُوكَةِ. This does not imply any woman, but a specific type of woman, a مَمْلُوكَةِ. So, a good question would be, what if a man, who has a free woman, wants to do Muta'a with another free woman? Would the above-mentioned narration stll be applicable? In short, I don't know. However, I could respond with the follow narration: وعن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن عمر بن اُذينة ، عن أبيعبدالله ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : قلت له : كم يحل من المتعة ؟ قال : فقال : هن بمنزلة الاماء . A woman, in a Muta'a relationship, would have the status of a slave-woman. Does this imply that if a man already has a free woman, to do Muta'a with any woman, free or not, would still require the permission of his free woman? This is a good question. I don't know. If all women, free or not, intending to do Muta'a would hold the status of a slave-woman, then yes, a man would need his free woman's permission. However, we cannot assume that wanting or intending to do Muta'a and being in a Muta'a contract are the same. Therefore, we cannot assume that a man must always have the permission of his free woman, before doing Muta'a. These are legitimate questions and debates. It is not a legitimate question, given the narrations of our Imams, to ask whether Muta'a is good or bad, or whether Muta'a should be shunned and discouraged in our times. Muta'a is a recommended Sunna. It is recommended by the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), and it is the Sunna of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Period.
  • Create New...