A Clarification For Sunnis About Mut'ah

[avjar7 35]

(salam)

I was having dinner a few weeks ago with a Sunni, and another Muslim who is Sunni-leaning, but is an academic and is open to other views of Islam. We got on the topic of mut'ah and the non-academic Sunni said, "Well, I can't see how you could do that, it's like prostitution." They don't know I'm Shia. So, I said to him, "Well, Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed it, so you can't really call it immoral." He said, "Oh, yeah, I guess you're right." We then changed the topic.

However, it brings up an important point. While not all Sunni scholars who prohibited mut'ah believed it was immoral, and argued for its prohibition on purely jurisprudential grounds, the aspect of immorality has definitely been a contention concerning mut'ah, both in the past and today. There are some Sunnis today who feel this way, and who insult mut'ah. It is one thing, although in the view of the Shia, incorrect, to argue for its prohibition or abrogation from a juristic standpoint, but often this contention and argument for its prohibition by Sunnis is bolstered by sentiments of immorality. I am seeking to show that Sunni Muslims, even on the basis of their own traditions and even considering mut'ah to have been abrogated, should not hold this view. Moreover, there are some who consider mut'ah to be synonymous with zina, and say that those who engage in it should to be legally punished as adulterers. But are mut'ah and zina the same thing? Should a Sunni Muslim feel this way? I hope to share some of my thoughts on it.

The Qur'an says:

Wala taqraboo alzzina innahu kana fahishatan wasaa sabeelan

Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). 17:32

Zina here has been described as "fahishah," what is translated as something "shameful."

Moreover, the Qur'an says:

Waallatheena itha faAAaloo fahishatan...

And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring Allah to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins,- and who can forgive sins except Allah.- and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. 3:135

Here we see that those who do an action that entails being termed fahishah, like zina, should seek forgiveness from Allah because it is a sin.

Furthermore, during the Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime there were two revealed punishments for adultery. The first punishment for zina entailed women being confined to their houses. This was then abrogated by flogging and stoning. Zina, which warrants legal punishment, has been termed as fahishah:

Waallatee yateena alfahishata min nisaikum...

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. 4:15

So, we know that if someone commits fahishah, that it is synonymous with zina (or even worse), is a sin, and if committed, a legal punishment can be carried out.

The word has also been used to describe the actions of the people of Lut:

Walootan ith qala liqawmihi atatoona alfahishata...

We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? 7:80

Moreover, cultural practices from jahiliyyah, abolished by Islam, have been termed as fahishah:

Wala tankihoo ma nakaha abaokum mina alnnisai illa ma qad salafa innahu kana fahishatan wamaqtan wasaa sabeelan

And marry not women whom your fathers married,- except what is past: It was shameful and odious,- an abominable custom indeed. 4:22

There are more examples from the Qur'an which corroborate these usages and what they entail.

It is clear that those actions deemed as fahishah are sins and immoral practices. We must avoid them, and if we commit them, repent to Allah.

Thus, Allah makes it clear, He never commands or ordains people to commit fahishah:

Waitha faAAaloo fahishatan qaloo wajadna AAalayha abaana waAllahu amarana biha qul inna Allaha la yamuru bialfahshai ataqooloona AAala Allahi ma la taAAlamoona

When they do aught that is shameful, they say: "We found our fathers doing so"; and "(Allah) commanded us thus": Say: "Nay, Allah never commands what is shameful: do ye say of Allah what ye know not?" 7:28

Allah would never order people to commit something that is a sin. However, even if we were Sunnis and believe that mut'ah has been abrogated, we must still believe that on and off it was practiced during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh).

We can cite a simple hadith from Sahih Muslim in corroboration of this:

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3247

Or, if we wish to go into more detail:

Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3252

Now, when the Prophet (pbuh) allowed the sahaba to contract mut'ah marriages, was he ordering them to sin? Was he ordering them to commit zina? When he ordered them to contract a temporary marriage, was he allowing them to commit fahishah? The Prophet (pbuh) would never order someone to sin, or to do something that goes against the Qur'an or the shariah, much less encourage people to commit zina (astaghfirAllah). Sunnis believe that the sunnah of the Prophet, like written revelation, was divinely inspired. Therefore, these instances in which mut'ah was allowed were allowances revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) from Allah subhanu wa ta'ala. However, we know that Allah never orders or commands fahishah, zina, or sin. The sahaba contracted temporary marriages, but of course while doing so still were strong against and feared committing zina, and therefore understood the differences between the two. Therefore, mut'ah and zina can never be synonymous with each other and cannot be understood as the same thing.

However, unlike alcohol, which was a practice from jahiliyyah that was never endorsed by Islam, but subsisted until gradually being banned, mut'ah, according to the Sunnis, was endorsed by the Prophet (pbuh) during his lifetime. Additionally, unlike grave visitation, which according to the Sunnis was something forbidden, and then allowed by the sunnah, mut'ah is unique. This is because when Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed mut'ah, even according to the Sunni perspective, there were already verses of the Qur'an which spoke of zina in absolute terms and warned against it. Thus, the sahaba had an understanding of what zina constituted, and since the Qur'an spoke about it, did not wish to commit it. However, in the midst of these verses, mut'ah was allowed. Therefore, from the perspective of usul al-fiqh, it is difficult to argue how mut'ah could ever contradict the Qur'an and be an invalid form of marriage--much less a sin. I am not going to touch on the belief that the allowance for mut'ah was revealed in the Qur'an, because this is not accepted by all Sunnis. I will merely argue upon what is agreed upon. However, if we hold this to be true, it would entail another line of argument.

So, we have established that mut'ah is not synonymous with zina--as Allah does not allow fahishah, but allowed mut'ah. Moreover, we have seen that fahishah is something that can incur a legal punishment if committed. Thus, if people contract mut'ah, since it is not fahishah, then the legal penalty of zina cannot come of it. The sahaba who Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed to contract mut'ah, were not brought before him to be punished for adultery, nor when in their mut'ah, imagined they were doing an action which warranted such a punishment--Rasool Allah (pbuh) command them to do it, and Rasool Allah would never order them to commit a sin. However, unfortunately, some Muslims believe mut'ah, despite being allowed by Allah, to be zina. And like fahishah, despite being allowed by Allah, believe those who practice it should be stoned, like adulterers.

There is the following account in Sahih Muslim:

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Muta was practiced during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones.

Umar ibn al-Khattab is also popularly believed to have said if he found evidence of two people in a mut'ah, he would stone them.

Now, the question is, would Allah command the sahaba to perform an action, that when they did it, they were committing a sin and deserved to be stoned? Would Allah order the Muslims to commit zina? Allah never allows fahishah, so the answer is no. And moreover, unlike other things in the shariah which were abrogated, or prohibited and allowed in the sunnah alone, the concept of mut'ah is related to verses in the Qur'an. So, while Shias believe it is methodologically mistaken to believe mut'ah to have been abrogated, I hope it can be shown that despite this, it can never be termed something immoral, as Allah and Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed it, and they only allow the best things.

Of course other perspectives are welcome, but these are just my thoughts.

May Allah guide us to and strengthen us upon the truth and help us. Ameen.

Edited February 4, 2010 by avjar7

[Gypsy 3,164]

(salam)

But are mut'ah and zina the same thing?

Obviously they are not. At the end of the day, Mut'ah is still a marriage contract, however brief/long it may be.

You will rarely find people (Sunni) who will give you a straight answer. To them muta is something that was briefly halal and then it become haram permanently.

Now, the question is, would Allah command the sahaba to perform an action, that when they did it, they were committing a sin and deserved to be stoned?

They say an exception was made for the Holy Prophet (saww) because it was an emergency (war). You are going to find hadiths about muta and donkey meat being made halal briefly and then haram permanently. To Sunni, Umar al khattab was only implementing the sharia.

Now the problem is, Umar himself said muta was halal in the time of Prophet! This is the biggest evidence that you can present if you want to argue about muta. Obviously something as damaging as this can only be classified as weak/daif.

My point is, I wouldn't argue about merit of muta or inconsistency in the rulings/sharia. I would go back to Umar Al Khattab. He is the key witness.

[Abdaal 2]

If you want to avoid bias you should be able to convince all schools that muta is halaal. Can you convince non-sunnis such as Ibadis, Mutazillis, Zaydis and Ismailis that muta is halaal ? From what I notice is the 12rs are alone when it comes to muta and their story about how Bibi Fatima (sa) died. Now after all this it is still known that the sahabi Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) believed muta was halaal and he died in the state that muta was halaal. Now the 12rs can say there you go its halaal. However, the sunni school doesn't always work on the fatwa of one sahaba. What is binding on the sunni school is the consensus of sahaba and not the opinion of one sahabi.

Anyway here is clip which discusses muta.

[hardtoforget 0]

And the Christiians and Jews agrees that Muhammad is not a prophet, so whats ur point???? How are belief of ghayr imami a proof?

[89jghur32 516]

If you want to avoid bias you should be able to convince all schools that muta is halaal. Can you convince non-sunnis such as Ibadis, Mutazillis, Zaydis and Ismailis that muta is halaal ? From what I notice is the 12rs are alone when it comes to muta and their story about how Bibi Fatima (sa) died. Now after all this it is still known that the sahabi Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) believed muta was halaal and he died in the state that muta was halaal. Now the 12rs can say there you go its halaal. However, the sunni school doesn't always work on the fatwa of one sahaba. What is binding on the sunni school is the consensus of sahaba and not the opinion of one sahabi.

Anyway here is clip which discusses muta.

This bit is problematic for me, even as a Sunni. Yes, on the basis of the Quran, we can say that we should be kind to all of the Sahaba (ra). However, since when did they become a legitimate source for jurisprudence, unless they could link what they did back to the Prophet (pbuh)?

[hcy786 0]

(salam)

I was having dinner a few weeks ago with a Sunni, and another Muslim who is Sunni-leaning, but is an academic and is open to other views of Islam. We got on the topic of mut'ah and the non-academic Sunni said, "Well, I can't see how you could do that, it's like prostitution." They don't know I'm Shia. So, I said to him, "Well, Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed it, so you can't really call it immoral." He said, "Oh, yeah, I guess you're right." We then changed the topic.

However, it brings up an important point. While not all Sunni scholars who prohibited mut'ah believed it was immoral, and argued for its prohibition on purely jurisprudential grounds, the aspect of immorality has definitely been a contention concerning mut'ah, both in the past and today. There are some Sunnis today who feel this way, and who insult mut'ah. It is one thing, although in the view of the Shia, incorrect, to argue for its prohibition or abrogation from a juristic standpoint, but often this contention and argument for its prohibition by Sunnis is bolstered by sentiments of immorality. I am seeking to show that Sunni Muslims, even on the basis of their own traditions and even considering mut'ah to have been abrogated, should not hold this view. Moreover, there are some who consider mut'ah to be synonymous with zina, and say that those who engage in it should to be legally punished as adulterers. But are mut'ah and zina the same thing? Should a Sunni Muslim feel this way? I hope to share some of my thoughts on it.

The Qur'an says:

Wala taqraboo alzzina innahu kana fahishatan wasaa sabeelan

Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils). 17:32

Zina here has been described as "fahishah," what is translated as something "shameful."

Moreover, the Qur'an says:

Waallatheena itha faAAaloo fahishatan...

And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring Allah to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins,- and who can forgive sins except Allah.- and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. 3:135

Here we see that those who do an action that entails being termed fahishah, like zina, should seek forgiveness from Allah because it is a sin.

Furthermore, during the Prophet's (pbuh) lifetime there were two revealed punishments for adultery. The first punishment for zina entailed women being confined to their houses. This was then abrogated by flogging and stoning. Zina, which warrants legal punishment, has been termed as fahishah:

Waallatee yateena alfahishata min nisaikum...

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. 4:15

So, we know that if someone commits fahishah, that it is synonymous with zina (or even worse), is a sin, and if committed, a legal punishment can be carried out.

The word has also been used to describe the actions of the people of Lut:

Walootan ith qala liqawmihi atatoona alfahishata...

We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? 7:80

Moreover, cultural practices from jahiliyyah, abolished by Islam, have been termed as fahishah:

Wala tankihoo ma nakaha abaokum mina alnnisai illa ma qad salafa innahu kana fahishatan wamaqtan wasaa sabeelan

And marry not women whom your fathers married,- except what is past: It was shameful and odious,- an abominable custom indeed. 4:22

There are more examples from the Qur'an which corroborate these usages and what they entail.

It is clear that those actions deemed as fahishah are sins and immoral practices. We must avoid them, and if we commit them, repent to Allah.

Thus, Allah makes it clear, He never commands or ordains people to commit fahishah:

Waitha faAAaloo fahishatan qaloo wajadna AAalayha abaana waAllahu amarana biha qul inna Allaha la yamuru bialfahshai ataqooloona AAala Allahi ma la taAAlamoona

When they do aught that is shameful, they say: "We found our fathers doing so"; and "(Allah) commanded us thus": Say: "Nay, Allah never commands what is shameful: do ye say of Allah what ye know not?" 7:28

Allah would never order people to commit something that is a sin. However, even if we were Sunnis and believe that mut'ah has been abrogated, we must still believe that on and off it was practiced during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh).

We can cite a simple hadith from Sahih Muslim in corroboration of this:

Salama b. al. Akwa' and Jabir b. Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) came to us and permitted us to contract temporary marriage. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3247

Or, if we wish to go into more detail:

Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3252

Now, when the Prophet (pbuh) allowed the sahaba to contract mut'ah marriages, was he ordering them to sin? Was he ordering them to commit zina? When he ordered them to contract a temporary marriage, was he allowing them to commit fahishah? The Prophet (pbuh) would never order someone to sin, or to do something that goes against the Qur'an or the shariah, much less encourage people to commit zina (astaghfirAllah). Sunnis believe that the sunnah of the Prophet, like written revelation, was divinely inspired. Therefore, these instances in which mut'ah was allowed were allowances revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) from Allah subhanu wa ta'ala. However, we know that Allah never orders or commands fahishah, zina, or sin. The sahaba contracted temporary marriages, but of course while doing so still were strong against and feared committing zina, and therefore understood the differences between the two. Therefore, mut'ah and zina can never be synonymous with each other and cannot be understood as the same thing.

However, unlike alcohol, which was a practice from jahiliyyah that was never endorsed by Islam, but subsisted until gradually being banned, mut'ah, according to the Sunnis, was endorsed by the Prophet (pbuh) during his lifetime. Additionally, unlike grave visitation, which according to the Sunnis was something forbidden, and then allowed by the sunnah, mut'ah is unique. This is because when Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed mut'ah, even according to the Sunni perspective, there were already verses of the Qur'an which spoke of zina in absolute terms and warned against it. Thus, the sahaba had an understanding of what zina constituted, and since the Qur'an spoke about it, did not wish to commit it. However, in the midst of these verses, mut'ah was allowed. Therefore, from the perspective of usul al-fiqh, it is difficult to argue how mut'ah could ever contradict the Qur'an and be an invalid form of marriage--much less a sin. I am not going to touch on the belief that the allowance for mut'ah was revealed in the Qur'an, because this is not accepted by all Sunnis. I will merely argue upon what is agreed upon. However, if we hold this to be true, it would entail another line of argument.

So, we have established that mut'ah is not synonymous with zina--as Allah does not allow fahishah, but allowed mut'ah. Moreover, we have seen that fahishah is something that can incur a legal punishment if committed. Thus, if people contract mut'ah, since it is not fahishah, then the legal penalty of zina cannot come of it. The sahaba who Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed to contract mut'ah, were not brought before him to be punished for adultery, nor when in their mut'ah, imagined they were doing an action which warranted such a punishment--Rasool Allah (pbuh) command them to do it, and Rasool Allah would never order them to commit a sin. However, unfortunately, some Muslims believe mut'ah, despite being allowed by Allah, to be zina. And like fahishah, despite being allowed by Allah, believe those who practice it should be stoned, like adulterers.

There is the following account in Sahih Muslim:

'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favor of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Muta was practiced during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: Just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones.

Umar ibn al-Khattab is also popularly believed to have said if he found evidence of two people in a mut'ah, he would stone them.

Now, the question is, would Allah command the sahaba to perform an action, that when they did it, they were committing a sin and deserved to be stoned? Would Allah order the Muslims to commit zina? Allah never allows fahishah, so the answer is no. And moreover, unlike other things in the shariah which were abrogated, or prohibited and allowed in the sunnah alone, the concept of mut'ah is related to verses in the Qur'an. So, while Shias believe it is methodologically mistaken to believe mut'ah to have been abrogated, I hope it can be shown that despite this, it can never be termed something immoral, as Allah and Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed it, and they only allow the best things.

Of course other perspectives are welcome, but these are just my thoughts.

May Allah guide us to and strengthen us upon the truth and help us. Ameen.

Is not haram alcohol permissible during life time of S.A.W. !!?? But afterwards it considered as haram on around 6-7AH..

same logic here..

Ur logic is baseless..

[Aabiss_Shakari 1,403]

If you want to avoid bias you should be able to convince all schools that muta is halaal. Can you convince non-sunnis such as Ibadis, Mutazillis, Zaydis and Ismailis that muta is halaal ? From what I notice is the 12rs are alone when it comes to muta and their story about how Bibi Fatima (sa) died. Now after all this it is still known that the sahabi Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) believed muta was halaal and he died in the state that muta was halaal. Now the 12rs can say there you go its halaal. However, the sunni school doesn't always work on the fatwa of one sahaba. What is binding on the sunni school is the consensus of sahaba and not the opinion of one sahabi.

Anyway here is clip which discusses muta.

It is really amazing to know that consensus of Sahaba among Sunnis can even abrogate or amend the "Nas of Quran". This Ijtehad against the Quranic provisions is the main reason of fitna among Ummah.

[guest 34193 41]

It is really amazing to know that consensus of Sahaba among Sunnis can even abrogate or amend the "Nas of Quran".

Well he already shot himself in the foot on that one in admitting that Ibn `Abbas believed in the permissibility of mut`a (strange, if he thinks the other companions where basing their prohibition on it on what the Prophet (pbuh) said, as opposed to what `Umar prohibited by himself, did Ibn `Abbas not know this? and if he did know this (that they were saying they were basing it off of what the Prophet (pbuh) taught) why wouldn't he have believed them when they said so?). It's agreed that mut`a was originally allowed. So the onus is in _proving_ it was later forbidden, you don't need to prove a permitted act remains permitted. By stating this about Ibn `Abbas (though it wasn't only him in fact), that means that there is no consensus of the companions proving it.

[Abdaal 2]

The other shia sects don`t follow Umar (ra). I wonder how you can convince them ?

It is really amazing to know that consensus of Sahaba among Sunnis can even abrogate or amend the "Nas of Quran". This Ijtehad against the Quranic provisions is the main reason of fitna among Umma

Not everyone believes that 4:24 was for muta. This is part of Ibn Abbas' (ra) agreement. Also there are verses that tell us control our desire. Also, I'm only against muta, but I'm against the Jafri fiqh ruling on permanent marriage. You don't even require a witness for that.

This bit is problematic for me, even as a Sunni. Yes, on the basis of the Quran, we can say that we should be kind to all of the Sahaba (ra). However, since when did they become a legitimate source for jurisprudence, unless they could link what they did back to the Prophet (pbuh)?

None of the 4 schools and even other shia sects took ibn Abbas' (ra) opinion on the matter.

[avjar7 35]

Anyway here is clip which discusses muta.

(bismillah)

سبحان ربي الأعلى وبحمده

اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد

(salam)

Thank you for posting this video. May Allah guide us to the truth. Ameen.

It is my intention to simply explain my thought process behind mut'ah, and how, even if we are speaking about it on the basis of what is unanimously accepted by Sunnis, we should not see it as something immoral. And moreover, how mut'ah, in my eyes, can never contradict the Qur'an.

To this end, the video you posted contains another important aspect to this. I will not cover the other aspects of the video, but just focus on the point that is pertinent to this topic.

Around 7:05 in the video, the speaker says, "There's an ayat in the Qur'an that I have the impression is avoided by these same scholars who advocate for mut'ah. The ayat says: "Muhsineena ghayra musafiheena wala muttakhithee akhdanin."

He goes on to say, "The word khadan, the plural is akhdan, is one of these words that doesn't figure into a concentration of thought by Shia scholars. I would invite them to take a closer look at this ayat."

This phrase has been used in two verses in the Qur'an, in 4:25 and 5:5. In the Yusuf Ali translation of 5:5, it is translated as:

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

I assume that he is speaking about the part that is translated as "secret paramours."

In 4:25 it is translated as: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours.

4:25: muhsanatin ghayra masafihatin wala muttakhithati akhdanin

5:5: muhsineena ghayra musafiheena wala muttakhithee akhdanin

Although there are slight contextual differences, the phrase being used is the same, and I don't think will immediately impact the analysis I am about to give.

The point of the speaker being that if we accept mut'ah, it contradicts the verses that say to not take "secret paramours." However, it is my contention, from my first post, to show that mut'ah can never contradict the Qur'an. So, I wish to show that it does not contradict these verses.

In my original post I posted the hadith from Sahih Muslim about the Prophet (pbuh) allowing mut'ah to some of the sahaba:

Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger (pbuh) permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.

However, what is present in other hadiths, but not this one, is that this event took place during the Conquest of Makkah:

'Abd al-Malik b. Rabi' b. Sabraal-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father who narrated it on the authority of his father (i e. 'Abd al-Malik's grandfather, Sabura al-Huhanni): Allah's Messenger (pbuh) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did come out of it but he forbade us to do it. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3257

So, the incident in which Sabra Juhanni remained with the woman in mut'ah for three nights was during the Conquest of Makkah, which for the sake of convenience, according to Wikipedia, took place during 8AH:

Mecca was conquered by the Muslims in January 630 AD (10th day of Ramadan, 8 AH). It is called Fatah-e-Mubeen, The Glorious Victory.

As I mentioned before, Surah al-Nisa was revealed before Surah al-Nur. Surah al-Nisa contained the first punishment for adultery, which was confining women to their houses, whereas Surah al-Nur contains the prescription of lashing. Thus, Surah al-Nur, since one of its injunctions abrogated an injunction in Surah al-Nisa, was revealed after it. I tried a quick search and couldn't find an exact date for the revelation of Surah al-Nisa, but I did for Surah al-Nur. Wikipedia says:

The general agreement of scholars is that is sura was revealed shortly before or after the Battle of the Trench in 5 AH.

So, it must be true that Surah al-Nisa was revealed either in 5 AH or most likely before. Of course there are other ways of corroborating this and looking at events spoken about in the surahs, however, this seems to be a simple way.

I believe that according to Sunnis, it is pretty well accepted that the Conquest of Makkah, in 8 AH, was the last time that mut'ah was allowed.

Therefore, when Sabra Juhanni and other sahaba contracted mut'ah marriage, the verse speaking about "secret paramours" in Surah al-Nisa, had already been revealed. The Prophet (pbuh) allowed what we as Shias would term a mut'ah marriage. Sabra Juhanni stayed with the woman for three days. He had a mut'ah. Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed him to do so. Moreover, when Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed the sahaba to do this, the verse speaking about taking "secret paramours" had already been revealed. When Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed the sahaba to do this, was he allowing them to do an action that contradicts the Qur'an? Did the sahaba believe they were undertaking a "secret paramour" and acting against the Qur'an? Did Allah, through the sunnah, allow mut'ah to be done, but it is something blameworthy that contradicts a Qur'anic verse and fulfills the conditions of a union that is spoken against by Himself? The fact that mut'ah was prescribed by Rasool Allah (pbuh) after the revelation of the verse about "secret paramours" means that mut'ah can never be covered under such a definition. This verse can never serve as an argument against mut'ah simply because after it had been revealed, Rasool Allah (pbuh), in Sunni eyes, allowed it. And Rasool Allah (pbuh) would never allow the sahaba to commit an action that is a sin or that goes against the Qur'an. Therefore, "secret paramours" must necessarily refer to something that is distinct from mut'ah. Using this verse as a proof against mut'ah in any way is futile. Rasool Allah (pbuh) and the sahaba obviously related to this verse and understood it in a different way, because they practiced mut'ah after it had been revealed, and there is no way that it can contradict it. Moreover, Allah does not allow fahishah. However, Allah allowed mut'ah--even in limited cases according to the Sunnis. Therefore, any argument as to mut'ah's immorality is not acceptable. If it was fahishah, Allah would never have allowed it at all. Period. Thus any argument as to its immorality, even as a Sunni, is futile.

سبحان ربي الأعلى وبحمده

اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد

Edited February 7, 2010 by avjar7

[Abdaal 2]

(bismillah)

سبحان ربي الأعلى وبحمده

اللهم صل علي محمد و آل محمد

(salam)

Thank you for posting this video. May Allah guide us to the truth. Ameen.

It is my intention to simply explain my thought process behind mut'ah, and how, even if we are speaking about it on the basis of what is unanimously accepted by Sunnis, we should not see it as something immoral. And moreover, how mut'ah, in my eyes, can never contradict the Qur'an.

I don't see muta as immoral. To me it was a conditional marriage. If ibn Abbas (ra) a great sahabi believed in why should I call shias haramchores for doing it ? On the contrary, muta again in conditional marriage. Its not like I can see a gorgeous girl and expect to do muta with her. This is not how I understood it. Also, the other problem is the witness issue. In Iran it is allowed, but I wonder why they have added extra condition which don't even exist in the Jafari fiqh ? You can attack the previous rulers for it and even call a sunni a jahil for refusing it. However, you can't even step up to the Islamic government of Iran. If you want to do muta go ahead. I am not going accuse you of zina. It seems like the West allows you to fully implement the Jafari fiqh for muta. However, don't tell me that I should muta. This is a conditional marriage. Its not encouraged. If it was then even the Imams would have done it. They lived without and I would like to follow their sunnah by believing that I can save my self for marriage.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Abdaal

[avjar7 35]

I don't see muta as immoral. To me it was a conditional marriage. If ibn Abbas (ra) a great sahabi believed in why should I call shias haramchores for doing it ? On the contrary, muta again in conditional marriage. Its not like I can see a gorgeous girl and expect to do muta with her. This is not how I understood it. Also, the other problem is the witness issue. In Iran it is allowed, but I wonder why they have added extra condition which don't even exist in the Jafari fiqh ? You can attack the previous rulers for it and even call a sunni a jahil for refusing it. However, you can't even step up to the Islamic government of Iran. If you want to do muta go ahead. I am not going accuse you of zina. It seems like the West allows you to fully implement the Jafari fiqh for muta. However, don't tell me that I should muta. This is a conditional marriage. Its not encouraged. If it was then even the Imams would have done it. They lived without and I would like to follow their sunnah by believing that I can save my self for marriage.

Ok, well, it's good that you don't see it as immoral. My contention was that some Sunnis do, and while objecting to it on jurisprudential grounds, often bring up some aspect of immorality along with it.

I think the need for witnesses is important in some cases, but much less important than the consent of the female's guardian. The permission of the female's wali, if applicable, is one of the main conditions that makes a marriage halal or not. Clearly this is more important than having witnesses witness your marriage. But anyway, read the hadith of Sabra Juhanni over again. It doesn't really seem that they had any witnesses, does it? But that's not really clear.

Moreover, you made this contention before in another thread, about the fact that mut'ah couldn't be allowed because if it is, there's no way to prove zina, and thus carry out its punishment. However, again this is contradicted by the fact that during the lifetime of Rasool Allah (pbuh), he allowed the sahaba to practice mut'ah, while at the same time the punishment for zina had been revealed. Therefore, jurisprudentially, even during Rasool Allah's (pbuh) lifetime, there must have been an understanding and jurisprudential mechanism for distinguishing between the two and how it was understood and differentiated from zina socially.

Or, I'll let Ibn Abbas explain it for you:

عبد الرزاق عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس : (يراها الآن حلالا ، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ، وقال ابن عباس : في حرف إلى أجل ، قال عطاء : وأخبرني من شئت عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال : لقد كان أحدنا ستمتع بملء القدح سويقاً ، وقال صفوان : هذا ابن عباس يفتي بالزنا ، فقال ابن عباس : إني لا أفتي بالزنا ، أفنسي صفوان أم أراكة ، فوالله إن ابنها لمن ذلك ، أفزناً هو ؟ قال : واستمع بها رجل من بني جمح .).

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/showHadiths2.php?BNo=1646&BkNo=17&KNo=16&startno=15

Abdul Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj who said: 'Ata' told me he heard Ibn Abbas sees it (mut'ah) as halal now and told me he recited, "Fama istamta'tum bihi minhunna fa aatuhunna ujurahunna fareedhah." (4:24) And Ibn Abbas said: "Fi" means to an appointed time. 'Ata' said: Someone told me from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri that he said, "We used to do mut'ah with a bowl full of saweeq." And Safwan said: Ibn Abbas is giving fatwa on zina. Ibn Abbas said: I don't give fatwa on zina, did Safwan forget Umm Rakah, by Allah her son is from (that), so did she do zina? And said: And a man from Bani Jumah has had mut'ah with her.

Not the most intellectual argument on Ibn Abbas' part, but he sought to show, perhaps in terms that "Safwan" could understand, how mut'ah and zina, even in a social perspective, are different from each other. But of course, as I've shown, mut'ah and zina can never be the same, as Allah allowed mut'ah, but would never allow zina (astaghfirAllah).

Also, notice that it says, "يراها الآن حلال"--Ibn Abbas sees it as halal now. This means that he did not always see it as halal. It is mentioned in a source that I can't recall now, that when Ibn Abbas heard the fatwas of Ali ibn Abi Talib عليه السلام, he would abandon his own opinion and what other people said and only practice upon the fatwas of Ali عليه السلام. Perhaps he was unsure about it, but he heard that it was halal from Ali عليه السلام, and thus changed his view and permanently supported it until his death.

Edited February 4, 2010 by avjar7

[Abdaal 2]

Just show them the ahadith of ibn abbas (ra). If they attack you then they are attacking an Auwlia of Allah (swt).

the lifetime of Rasool Allah (pbuh), he allowed the sahaba to practice mut'ah, while at the same time the punishment for zina had been revealed. Therefore, jurisprudentially, even during Rasool Allah's (pbuh) lifetime, there must have been an understanding and jurisprudential mechanism for distinguishing between the two.

Wasn't that only after war. Does this give us to the green light to do muta with anyone we find appealing ? Suppose I go to uni today, and I have a blonde smiling at me. Am I allowed to muta with her ? Or is it only the case where I am stranded with this same blonde and muta becomes conditional for me ?

[avjar7 35]

Just show them the ahadith of ibn abbas (ra). If they attack you then they are attacking an Auwlia of Allah (swt).

Wasn't that only after war. Does this give us to the green light to do muta with anyone we find appealing ? Suppose I go to uni today, and I have a blonde smiling at me. Am I allowed to muta with her ? Or is it only the case where I am stranded with this same blonde and muta becomes conditional for me ?

We're not going to be dragged into this conversation.

However, I have one more point for you to ponder. :)

Sunnis often claim that mut'ah was forbidden by ijma'. When Umar banned it, the sahaba had an "agreement" that Umar was right. Despite the fact that there are narrations from sahaba who practiced it until Umar's time, and advocated it after, Sunnis believe that this view is not jurisprudentially correct. Yet, some sahaba held this opinion, and despite some of them believing Umar had banned it, Sunni scholars have advocated that Umar was simply acting on the prior banning by the Prophet (pbuh). Yet, despite this, there were obviously some sahaba who believed Umar had banned it himself. Although in the eyes of ahlul sunnah, they were mistaken, and Umar was simply acting on the Prophet's (pbuh) earlier ban. However, for these sahaba who had this "mistaken" understanding, do you think they looked kindly upon Umar, someone who changed the shariah, and the ruling of the Prophet (pbuh), in their eyes? Therefore, whatever arguments of ijma', or a collective agreement as to Umar's rightfulness in the ruling, are batil. Clearly some sahaba, if they believed Umar had himself banned mut'ah, would have held sentiments against him for doing this and changing the shariah--even if later Sunni scholars considered these sahaba to be mistaken in their assessments. So, it's inconceivable that during Umar's life, whatever juristic decisions he made were binding on the basis of ijma'. Umar ruled through fear, that's why people didn't speak up at the time.

Abd Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir, a person came and said: There is difference of opinion among Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair about two Mut'as (benefits, Tamattul in Hajj and temporary marriage with women), whereupon Jabir said: We have been doing this during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (pbuh), and then Umar forbade us to do so, and we never resorted to them. Sahih Muslim Book #7, Hadith #2874

Ibn Juraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and during the time of Abi Bakr and Umar. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3248

Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of (tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith. Sahih Muslim Book #8, Hadith #3249

Clearly Jabir ibn Abdallah (ra) believed that Umar had banned it himself. Do you think, despite mistakenly believing this according to Sunnis, that Jabir would have had a high opinion of someone, who in his eyes, had banned something the Prophet (pbuh) had allowed? Therefore, any arguments as to an ijma', in any of Umar's rulings, or even as to the legitimacy or rightfulness of his rule or the correctness of his actions, don't seem to serve as a proof.

Edited February 4, 2010 by avjar7

[Abdaal 2]

We're not going to be dragged into this conversation.

Why not ? I am trying to find out if there is a fiqhi difference between muta back then and the Jafari muta of today. Answer my question.

Let me repeat myself.

Wasn't that muta only after war. Does this give us to the green light to do muta with anyone we find appealing ? Suppose I go to uni today, and I have a blonde smiling at me. Am I allowed to muta with her ? Or is it only the case where I am stranded with this same blonde and muta becomes conditional for me ?

As for the rest of your information it a repetition of what the 12rs always say. Its nothing new.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Abdaal

[avjar7 35]

Why not ? I am trying to find out if there is a fiqhi difference between muta back then and the Jafari muta of today. Answer my question.

Let me repeat myself.

Wasn't that muta only after war. Does this give us to the green light to do muta with anyone we find appealing ? Suppose I go to uni today, and I have a blonde smiling at me. Am I allowed to muta with her ? Or is it only the case where I am stranded with this same blonde and muta becomes conditional for me ?

As for the rest of your information it a repetition of what the 12rs always say. Its nothing new.

I'm not going to go into how to contract a mut'ah according to Shia fiqh. If you want to know you can ask a question about it in the Islamic Laws forum. However, it can be used in any case, with the intention of performing it for the sake of Allah, like any action. However, for someone who has never been married, her wali's permission is required. And we don't believe that mut'ah was only allowed during war, like your hadiths stipulate. It was made halal in the Qur'an and was a permenant practice that Allah allowed.

By the way, since Ibn Abbas believed that ayat 4:24 was revealed concerning mut'ah, it would have been hard for him to believe that the wording in 4:25, the very next verse, is a proof against it, as the speaker in the video you posted claims. So obviously he had a conception of the differences between "secret paramours" and mut'ah as well. At the end of the day, mut'ah is a marriage. Just one for a specified duration. It includes various conditions, a mahr, and an iddah.

Wa assalaamu aleykum.

Edited February 4, 2010 by avjar7

[Abu'l Fadl 2]

The point is: مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ

"Desiring chastity not lust". Is Mut'ah in Twelver Shi'î Fiqh for desiring chastity or lust when taking in account that it's allowed to do mut'ah for 1 hour! (and also prostitutes!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaZxYAvC1og

Not one of my favourite but here he makes a good point.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Abu'l Fadl

[avjar7 35]

The point is: مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ

"Desiring chastity not lust". Is Mut'ah in Twelver Shi'î Fiqh for desiring chastity or lust when taking in account that it's allowed to do mut'ah for 1 hour! (and also prostitutes!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaZxYAvC1og

Not one of my favourite but here he makes a good point.

(bismillah)

(salam)

The above you quoted is from 4:24. I've already shown that according to Sunni sources mut'ah was allowed by the Prophet (pbuh) after the revelation of Surah al-Nisa. Therefore, this verse can't ever contradict mut'ah, simply because when Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed mut'ah during the Conquest of Makkah according to Sunnis, this verse had already been revealed. And Rasool Allah (pbuh) wouldn't have allowed the sahaba to do something which contradicts the Qur'an or is a sin. And we have already established that in the first place, Allah never allows fahishah, but He allowed mut'ah. Therefore mut'ah and fahishah can never be synonymous with each other. It's already established that according to Sunnis, Sabra Juhanni had a mut'ah for three days, after Surah al-Nisa had been revealed. So, clearly, the verse can't serve as a proof against mut'ah in any way.

Edited February 9, 2010 by avjar7

[Abu'l Fadl 2]

(bismillah)

(salam)

The above you quoted is from 4:24. I've already shown that according to Sunni sources mut'ah was allowed by the Prophet (pbuh) after the revelation of Surah al-Nisa. Therefore, this verse can't ever contradict mut'ah, simply because when Rasool Allah (pbuh) allowed mut'ah during the Conquest of Makkah according to Sunnis, this verse had already been revealed. And Rasool Allah (pbuh) wouldn't have allowed the sahaba to do something which contradicts the Qur'an or is a sin. And we have already established that in the first place, Allah never allows fahishah, but He allowed mut'ah. Therefore mut'ah and fahishah can never be synonymous with each other. It's already established that according to Sunnis, Sabra Juhanni had a mut'ah for three days, after Surah al-Nisa had been revealed. So, clearly, the verse can't serve as a proof against mut'ah in any way.

Nobody denies that Mut'ah was allowed. Ibn 'Abbas (رضي الله عنه) permitted on certain conditions that must be met in order to do it.

Narrated Abu Jamra:

I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes."

His conditions is in such a manner to avoid contradicting the verse 'Desiring chastity and not lust' (مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ) which no way can be compared to the conditions set by Twelver Shi'â`s. If you call 1 intercourse or 1 hour intercourse "desiring chastity and not lust" then that's your choice and way of mut'ah but don't apply this as if those who allowed Mut'ah agreed with the conditions set by Twelver Shi'â`s.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Abu'l Fadl

[avjar7 35]

Nobody denies that Mut'ah was allowed. Ibn 'Abbas (رضي الله عنه) permitted on certain conditions that must be met in order to do it.

Narrated Abu Jamra:

I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut'a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut'a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, "That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce." On that, Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes."

His conditions is in such a manner to avoid contradicting the verse 'Desiring chastity and not lust' (مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ) which no way can be compared to the conditions set by Twelver Shi'â`s. If you call 1 intercourse or 1 hour intercourse "desiring chastity and not lust" then that's your choice and way of mut'ah but don't apply this as if those who allowed Mut'ah agreed with the conditions set by Twelver Shi'â`s.

From my understanding, mut'ah is used primarily by those in need. It is used by people for the sake of Allah, as a limited concession, so they can exercise their desires through a halal means. Even if there are hadiths which emphasize its usage otherwise, this is what I can think of as the primary use of mut'ah, by reason, and by most people. This is not "lust."

In addition to hadiths which indirectly emphasize the above purpose of mut'ah, there are also hadiths that I have come across, I am unaware of their authenticity, that emphasize mut'ah as being from the sunnah, and being a permenant teaching from Islam in general. And thus speak of performing it with the intention of fulfilling and reviving the sunnah as being praiseworthy, an act of worship if done with the right intention.

The two intentions can also interact simultaneously. However, I would think most people see mut'ah as a concession that allows those who are extremely pressed sexually (during travel, education, etc.) and don't have the means to enter into a permenant marriage, to have their desires fulfilled. So, I don't think that many Shias, while seeking to practice mut'ah, if indeed true, would disagree with Ibn Abbas' sentiments in one way or another. But at the same time, we also recognize it can be used in a variety of situations. However, the primary goal, like any actions, has to be for the sake of Allah.

Edited February 10, 2010 by avjar7

[89jghur32 516]

From my understanding, mut'ah is used primarily by those in need. It is used by people for the sake of Allah, as a limited concession, so they can exercise their desires through a halal means. Even if there are hadiths which emphasize its usage otherwise, this is what I can think of as the primary use of mut'ah, by reason, and by most people. This is not "lust."

In addition to hadiths which indirectly emphasize the above purpose of mut'ah, there are also hadiths that I have come across, I am unaware of their authenticity, that emphasize mut'ah as being from the sunnah, and being a permenant teaching from Islam in general. And thus speak of performing it with the intention of fulfilling and reviving the sunnah as being praiseworthy, an act of worship if done with the right intention.

The two intentions can also interact simultaneously. However, I would think most people see mut'ah as a concession that allows those who are extremely pressed sexually (during travel, education, etc.) and don't have the means to enter into a permenant marriage, to have their desires fulfilled. So, I don't think that many Shias, while seeking to practice mut'ah, if indeed true, would disagree with Ibn Abbas' sentiments in one way or another. But at the same time, we also recognize it can be used in a variety of situations. However, the primary goal, like any actions, has to be for the sake of Allah.

I watched a documentary about how Mut'ah is used for prostitution in Iran. An important feature of the documentary is how Mut'ah is increasingly being used only as a means for (legal) prostitution.

And I'm not raising this concern just against Mut'ah. I raised the same concern against Urfi in a conversation with a friend. Urfi (three-year secret marriage) has become a major problem in Egypt, as it's being used as a means for (legal) prostitution. Unfortunately, there is a built-in mechanism for it, since Urfi still has divorce.

I can raise the objection against all types of exotic marriages.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ninjaslim

[hardtoforget 0]

I watched a documentary about how Mut'ah is used for prostitution in Iran. An important feature of the documentary is how Mut'ah is increasingly being used only as a means for (legal) prostitution.

thats just a lie from indopak extremists (like they accused against a woman in islamabad before their Wahabi centre was bombed to the ground by the brave soldiers of Pakistan Foj). How many prostution houses have muta in real? Can you show just one? Why would ulama give fatwas that say "you can do muta w/ prostute" if the prostitutes are doing their thing via muta anyways? Why this is said by big scholars in places like iran iraq and pakistan if the prostutes were just using muta? Do you see illogical in that?

[89jghur32 516]

Yes, I suppose you can tie IndoPak with everything, even a documentary aired by CBC News, whose main researcher was an Iranian ex-patriot. Of course, Pakistan is just across the border quite a few hundred miles away from Tehran where the documentary was filmed. Those damn desis, they have a way of infiltrating everything!

[yourshamsi 0]

Sorry to interupt, but i only want all of you to go to Wikipedia and type nikah misyar, you will see that So many Sunni Ulama's have allowed the Mutta marriage with a slight change in mutta. So many Muslim countries adopt this marriage with a different name and the greatest university of Ahl-e-sunna i.e Al-Azhar has allowed it openly.

Edited February 12, 2010 by yourshamsi

[89jghur32 516]

Sorry to interupt, but i only want all of you to look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_Misyar. So many Sunni Ulama's have allowed the Mutta marriage with a slight change in mutta. So many Muslim countries adopt this marriage with a different name and the greatest university of Ahl-e-sunna i.e Al-Azhar has allowed it openly.

If you notice, Misyar still requires two witnesses and is not time-bound. However, Misyar can be effectively used as a time-bound marriage arbitrarily, given that if the woman drops one of the conditions originally stipulated, the husband can either accept it or divorce her. This differs from Mut'ah in the Jafari school, given that two witnesses are still required and the permission of Wali if necessary.

[avjar7 35]

I watched a documentary about how Mut'ah is used for prostitution in Iran. An important feature of the documentary is how Mut'ah is increasingly being used only as a means for (legal) prostitution.

4586 - وروى داود بن إسحاق، عن محمد بن الفيض قال: (سألت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام عن المتعة فقال: نعم إذا كانت عارفة، قلت: جعلت فداك فإن لم تكن عارفة؟ قال: فاعرض عليها، وقل لها فإن قبلت فتزوجها وإن أبت ولم ترض بقولك فدعها، وإياكم والكواشف والدواعي والبغايا وذوات الازواج، فقلت: ما الكواشف فقال: اللواتي يكاشفن وبيوتهن معلومة ويؤتين، قلت: فالدواعي؟ قال: اللواتي يدعون إلى أنفسهن وقد عرفن بالفساد، قلت: فالبغايا؟ قال: المعروفات بالزنا، قلت: فذوات الازواج؟ قال: المطلقات على غير السنة).

http://www.mezan.net/books/manlayahdraho/fakeeh3/html/ara/books/faqih/faqih-3/a156.html

Dawood bin Ishaq reports from Mohammed bin Faiz that he asked Imam Ja'afar al- Sadiq عليه السلام about mut'ah. The Imam عليه السلام replied, "Yes, it's in order provided the woman you approach recognizes it." I asked again, "What if she does not?" The Imam replied, "Then inform her about it and if she refuses to accept it or still does not understand it then do not go any further with her. However, one should refrain from Kuwashaf, Dawai, Baghaya, and Zawat Alzawaj." I asked, "Who are the Kuwashaf?" The Imam replied, "Those who are disgraceful and shameless and their homes are well known to people and they frequently visit them." I asked, "Who are the Dawai?" The Imam replied, "These are those women who invite men for (pleasure) and are famous for corruption." I asked, "Who are the Baghanya?" The Imam replied, "These are well known for zina." I asked, "Who are the Zawat Alzawaj?" The Imam replied, "These are those whose divorce has not been as per the sunnah."

Translation from: http://hubeali.com/practices/chapter-6-family-life.pdf (PDF)

More here: http://www.rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-21/v02.html#8

Edited February 12, 2010 by avjar7

[Abdaal 2]

If you notice, Misyar still requires two witnesses and is not time-bound. However, Misyar can be effectively used as a time-bound marriage arbitrarily, given that if the woman drops one of the conditions originally stipulated, the husband can either accept it or divorce her. This differs from Mut'ah in the Jafari school, given that two witnesses are still required and the permission of Wali if necessary.

Misyar is haraam. Watch my video on post #3

[89jghur32 516]

You certainly learn something new everyday.

[dasayy 1]

Here is the the Film Mutah in Iran

the filmmakers are Westerners not wahabi.

Another film " bbc sex change in iran1" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXspR1iRlz0

Males are having sex chang in Iran and they will perform Mutah in order to make money.

[naheed 9]

the filmmakers are Westerners not wahabi.

LOL is not Wahabi the illegal child of Britain?

Wahhabism and "Confessions of a British spy"

[fatima khan 0]

i wud like to add sumthing to what my shia brothers and sisters are trying to prove that mutta is allowed in islam... lets put the hadith aside...lets put all the refrences from ulama aside.. lets cum to QURAN pak..as every muslim strongly blvs on it and can never deny anything written in it... in all the books be it of ehle sunnat or ehle tashii.. where ever any hadith or saying is written in arabic...words like "FASTAMTAOO" or "TASTAMTAOO" are used for mutta and in QURAN pak surah NISA ayat number 24..this word is used for mutta... and this ayat tells that Allah tala himself allowed mutta.. still if sumone denys AYAT e mubaraka...then may Allah show us the right path...AMEEN

[Abdaal 2]

Not everyone agrees that it refers to muta. Therefore, please don't accuse others of disobeying the Quran. If we just stick to the Quran it says Bibi Maryam (as) is the most exalted nisa in status. It is ahadith that goes further with explanation.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Abdaal

[naheed 9]

Not everyone agrees that it refers to muta. Therefore, please don't accuse others of disobeying the Quran. If we just stick to the Quran it says Bibi Maryam (as) is the most exalted nisa in status. It is ahadith that goes further with explanation.

Quran 4:24

وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ كِتَٰبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَٰلِكُمْ مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَٰفِحِينَ فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَٰضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ ٱلْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً }

According to Sunni Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs of 4:24

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (It is a decree of Allah for you) that which I have mentioned to you is unlawful in Allah's Book. (Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned) as unlawful, (so that ye seek them) marry (with your wealth) up to four wives; it is also said that this means: so that you buy with your wealth captives; and it is also said that this means: so that you should seek with your money marrying women for an agreed period of time (zawaj al-mut'ah) but the lawfulness of this practice was later abrogated

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Since muta has been made lawful in Quran, only a Quranic verse can abrogate it and any hadith, which goes against it is null and void.

Again Umar gets caught.

Edited March 5, 2010 by naheed

[asher 1]

If anyone knows urdu do read this too.

it's related to the same :

(wasalam)

[dasayy 1]

Surah 23. The Believers

1. The believers must (eventually) win through,-

2. Those who humble themselves in their prayers;

3. Who avoid vain talk;

4. Who are active in deeds of charity;

5. Who abstain from sex,

6. Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

7. But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-

Quran 4:24

æóٱáúãõÍúÕóäóٰÊõ ãöäó ٱáäøöÓóÂÁö ÅöáÇøó ãóÇ ãóáóßúÊó Ãóíúãóٰäõßõãú ßöÊóٰÈó ٱááøóåö Úóáóíúßõãú æóÃõÍöáøó áóßõãú ãøóÇ æóÑóÇÁó Ðóٰáößõãú Ãóä ÊóÈúÊóÛõæÇú ÈöÃóãúæóٰáößõãú ãøõÍúÕöäöíäó ÛóíúÑó ãõÓóٰÝöÍöíäó ÝóãóÇ ٱÓúÊóãúÊóÚúÊõãú Èöåö ãöäúåõäøó ÝóÂÊõæåõäøó ÃõÌõæÑóåõäøó ÝóÑöíÖóÉð æóáÇó ÌõäóÇÍó Úóáóíúßõãú ÝöíãóÇ ÊóÑóٰÖóíúÊõãú Èöåö ãöä ÈóÚúÏö ٱáúÝóÑöíÖóÉö Åöäøó ٱááøóåó ßóÇäó ÚóáöíãÇð ÍóßöíãÇð }

According to Sunni Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs of 4:24

(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (It is a decree of Allah for you) that which I have mentioned to you is unlawful in Allah's Book. (Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned) as unlawful, (so that ye seek them) marry (with your wealth) up to four wives; it is also said that this means: so that you buy with your wealth captives; and it is also said that this means: so that you should seek with your money marrying women for an agreed period of time (zawaj al-mut'ah) but the lawfulness of this practice was later abrogated

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Since muta has been made lawful in Quran, only a Quranic verse can abrogate it and any hadith, which goes against it is null and void.

Again Umar gets caught.

Quran 4:24

------------------

(( " The Shia quote invalid evidence to support their argument that mut’ah is permissible. For example:

(a) They quote the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“…so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed…”

[al-Nisa’ 4:24]

They say: this verse indicates that mut’ah is permissible, and the word ‘their mahr (ujoorahunna – lit. their dues or their wages)’ is evidence that what is meant by the phrase ‘you have enjoyed sexual relations’ is mut’ah.

The refutation of this is the fact that prior to this Allaah mentions the women whom a man is forbidden to marry, then he mentions what is permissible for him, and He commands the man to give to the woman he marries her mahr.

The joy of marriage is expressed here by the word enjoyment (‘of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations’). A similar instance occurs in the Sunnah, in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Woman is like a bent rib, if you try to straighten her you will break her. If you want to enjoy her, then enjoy her while she still has some crookedness in her.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4889; Muslim, 1468.

The mahr is referred to here as ajr (lit. dues or wages), but this does not refer to the money which is paid to the woman with whom he engages in mut’ah in the contract of mut’ah. The mahr is referred to as ajr elsewhere in the Book of Allaah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage)…”

[al-Ahzaab 33:50]

Thus it becomes clear that there is no evidence in this verse to suggest that mut’ah is permissible.

With regard to Sahaaba who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.

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.”

Narrated by Muslim, 1407.

And Allaah knows best. ""-------------)

---------------------------------------

Edited March 5, 2010 by dasayy