Temporary marriage?

[Nightclaw 464]

11 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

The Hadith clearly says that Umar Banned it. If the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) really banned it Umar would have reminded the people of that. But he didn't. Why? Because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) never said this and your scholars are fabricators. Insults? No, I stated the Truth. And Arrogance? Let everyone see what happened concerning Ammar Ibn Yasir Insulting Uthman. Everyone will see who the arrogance is coming from. I proved you wrong and you still haven't admitted it till this day.

I don't care about your Hadiths because they are not my books. You wouldn't except me bring my books for this topic because you don't care about them, which is okay. 

Look here, son. I have already explained that Ammar bin Yassir talked bad about 'Uthman after his reign, after he died. If I did not mention it there, now I am. You have not proven me wrong. My initial claim was that cursing and insulting the companions did not start until after 'Uthman - and that very hadith proved me correct.

I am glad to know that you have lied. That is all I needed to know. As long as you cannot prove 'Umar said it first and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said it first is all I needed to know. If you do not care about my narrations, stop bringing them up. You were the one who addressed me in the first place with my hadiths, so if you truly did not care, stop talking about it to me.

[Nightclaw 464]

20 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I read them. It start out with 

Mut’ah marriage and refutation of those Raafidis who permit it

That won't score you any points here. The underline is added. It wasn't part of the original 'article' in the interests of full disclosure and accuracy. 

It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade mut’ah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407. 

This is just repeating what you already said. We don't accept that al Buhkari is Sahih. Also, we have many, many authentic hadith from Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) as well as his projeny, Imam of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) that contradict Bukhari. If I believed Bukhari over Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) I'd be Sunni. Im not, again, this line of reasoning won't work with me

A few other comments

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. 

Wrong. We say the word 'istimta3tum' provides this evidence, not the word 'ujoorahunna'. Istimta3tum is that specific word that refers to the marriage of Mutah, which was practiced during the time or Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). Ujoorahuna (dowry) refers to both types of marriages that were allowed. 

They only 'evidence' that the author provides is from Bukhari, again, whom we don't accept as Sahih. So without accepting this hadith of Bukhari, the argument falls apart. I was going to check out the second link, but it seems to be as poor quality, of arguments, as the first. I could go thru that one too, but to tell you the truth I'm not interested. I used to, in the past, go to these sites and post comments, but my comments magically disappear, so I think it's just a waste of time at this point. 

Are you purposely trying not to understand? I am not using this as proof against you because I know you do not accept it. Come on, man. You have got to do better. You bring up narrations from my side to prove something and when an explanation is given or you are asked to provide evidence for a claim, you fail to do it and say it is not authentic? What kind of backwards logic is this? Not a single person has done what I have asked them today. Perhaps if we were in a call, I would make it clear to everyone. 

They gave other evidences. If you do not want to look at it, sure. As a matter of fact, you could ask people who know more than me about this. Do you want their contact? Because it does not seem like you can comprehend the English that I write. 

[Muslim2010 3,512]

13 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

I am glad to know that you have lied. That is all I needed to know. As long as you cannot prove 'Umar said it first and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said it first is all I needed to know. If you do not care about my narrations, stop bringing them up. You were the one who addressed me in the first place with my hadiths, so if you truly did not care, stop talking about it to me.

The prophet forbade Mutah. First assumption.

Umar forbade Mutah. Second Assumption.

But the second assumption is well proven and evidence come from your books when you can find the hadith and sayings from companions for the permission of Mutah during the period of the Prophet, and first caliph.  This is a well proven by the statement of Umar that he forbade Mutah. 

Also these is no verse in Quran that mentions the prohibition of Mutah.

There are narrations in Shia books for permission of Mutah as well as mentioning its ban  by Umar.

You have right to agree or disagree but the evidences  are very clear for its permission. This is my humble opinion.

wasalam

Edited November 27, 2020 by Muslim2010

[Nightclaw 464]

Just now, Muslim2010 said:

The prophet forbade Mutah. First assumption.

Umar forbade Mutah. Second Assumption.

These are not assumptions as they are both authentic traditions for us. I do not see what the problem here is. You could argue as a Shi'a they are... but you hold no real authority, so it does not matter. That is superimposing what you think instead of actually bringing sufficient evidence from my side. Selection bias is very dangerous and shows lack of intellectual honesty.

3 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

But the second assumption is well proven and evidence come from your books when you can find the hadith and sayings from companions for the permission of Mutah during the period of the Prophet, First first caliph.  This is a well proven by the statement of Umar that he forbade Mutah. 

Reread my thread. Everyone comes saying the same thing, which goes to show that nobody is reading, which is bad enough. What is worse is that nobody is comprehending, either. Some companions did not know that it was prohibited because not all of them were present during Khaybar. Abu Bakr never mentioned it because it was well-known it was prohibited, and do you think this was on his mind with all that was going on? Be realistic. 

Yes, he forbade mut'ah. Nobody is denying this. My problem is that people are saying he did it first when this is not so according to OUR traditions. Everyone is showing me narrations from my tradition as evidence he did it first, but it is not even stated. This is clear distortion and statements of ignorance. Our narrations state the the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade it first. Did the companions practice it before it was banned? Yes. That is a given. Did they do it after they heard the prohibition? No.

7 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Also these is no verse in quran that mentions the prohibition of Mutah.

There is no verse in the Qur'an that mentions Imamah being a particle of faith either, yet here we are.

7 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

There are narrations in Shia books for permission of Mutah as well as mentioing its ban  by Umar.

Refer to above statements and other posts in the thread.

8 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

You have right to agree or disagree but the evidences  are very clear for its permission. This is my humble opinion.

wasalam

No problem, you can say this. It is clear that it was prohibited afterwards.

[smma 83]

This is my first post that reached so many replies so thanks for that yall. I request the mods to shut off this post now thanks. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by smma

[Muslim2010 3,512]

13 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

That is superimposing what you think instead of actually bringing sufficient evidence from my side. Selection bias is very dangerous and shows lack of intellectual honesty.

There is no superimposing about the facts (narrated text)  rightly corrected instead of assumptions. Disagreed as there are many thread on similar title and  there is no intellectual dishonesty from any one.

13 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Did the companions practice it before it was banned? Yes. That is a given. Did they do it after they heard the prohibition? No.

Disagreed on the basis of presented narration from sunni sources already mentioned by brother Mehdi.

13 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

There is no verse in the Qur'an that mentions Imamah being a particle of faith either, yet here we are.

Thus the absence of any verse of quran for prohibiting the Mutah is admitted. The Mutah is not an element of basic faith(like Immamah).

There are threads on Immamah and many verses describe it(like Chosen imams by Allah) present in quran.

wasalam

Edited November 27, 2020 by Muslim2010

[Nightclaw 464]

Just now, Muslim2010 said:

Disagreed on the basis of presented narration from sunni sources already mentioned by brother Mehdi.

14 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Go look at the history provided. I have said it over and over again and am tired of doing it because it goes through one ear out the other.

[Sabrejet 473]

6 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Go look at the history provided. I have said it over and over again and am tired of doing it because it goes through one ear out the other

Feeling's mutual, akhi.

Please wait a few days, Insha'Allah I will post comprehensive proofs from sunni books, as compiled by Allama Amini. After that, we can finally move to the stage where you use mental gymnastics to justify his decision, like actual sunni scholars do, instead of denying outright that he banned it after the Prophet's passed away.

[Abu Hadi 9,692]

Thread closed at request of op.