Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Zaydī Position on Mutʿah


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

The Consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt on the Impermissibility of Mutʿah.

A practice legitimized in the name of the Ahl al-Bayt! 

Read this short article and acquaint yourself with the unadulterated position of the Ahl al-Bayt of guidance. The stars from the progeny of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). Enjoy the fresh air of clear ʿAlid fiqh (jurisprudence) that is farthest that can be from the incoherence of Taqiyyah, and Ghulū.

Reignite your spirits by holding on to the two weighty things, the book of Allāh, and the ʿitrah. 

Discover the consistency of the Ahl al-Bayt who are represented by the Zaidīyyah, and know that a corpus which attributes “mass-transmitted” narrations to the Ahl al-Bayt of Mutʿah, Taḥrīf, and Takfīr is a tradition that cannot be relied on! 

It is one which is devoid of the essence of the Glorious Qur’ān, and the fragrant breeze that emanates from the teachings of the sons of al-Zahrā (upon her be peace). 

https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1If_LRaoDFh6yjzBB2Pe0BykuXSYmjIIL/view?usp=sharing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 1/25/2022 at 9:09 PM, Zaidism said:

It is one which is devoid of the essence of the Glorious Qur’ān, and the fragrant breeze that emanates from the teachings of the sons of al-Zahrā (upon her be peace). 

The false and baseless conjectures always come from Zaidiya inline with sunni both by joining shoulders to shoulder ,  Like the false and without evidences claims we have seen in these threads as given below:

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/26/2022 at 11:21 AM, Muslim2010 said:

The false and baseless conjectures always come from Zaidiya inline with sunni both by joining shoulders to shoulder ,  Like the false and without evidences claims we have seen in these threads as given below:

Mutʿah is

A) - Not Qur'anic

B) - Completely illogical

C) - Not a teaching of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace) 

It is was abrogated in the same manner alcohol was abrogated, and it is as foolvish as drinking alcohol. 

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbdul-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, he said: Describe it to me. I said: A man finds a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham for enjoyment. He said: That is Zina (fornication).

Source: [Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī, the section on what is mentionedregarding the impermissibility of Mutʿah, and any marriage that is devoid of two witnesses].

You are free brother to take the words of Zurarah, Abu Baseer, Shaytan al-Taq, and others who attributed lies to the Ahl al-Bayt, I am very comfortable in following the consensus of the ʿItra which is consistent with the Qur'an, and ʿAql. Moreover, I will take my fiqh from the works of the grandson of al-Imām Zayd ahead of al-Kulayni, and most certainly ahead of al-Majlisi (whom both believed the Qur'an was corrupted/incomplete). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam surely you are doing misinterpretation for supporting your nonsense & your wahabi/Salafi viewpoint because your mentioned hadith is not about prohibition of Mutah  but on the other hand is about prohibition of doing wrong in process of it .

You just as always have insulted Shia revered figures based on your Salafi/ahabi viewpoint for intentional defamaging Zaydi fiqh  by yoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 1/29/2022 at 4:32 PM, Zaidism said:

Mutʿah is

A) - Not Qur'anic

B) - Completely illogical

C) - Not a teaching of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace) 

It is was abrogated in the same manner alcohol was abrogated, and it is as foolvish as drinking alcohol. 

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbdul-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, he said: Describe it to me. I said: A man finds a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham for enjoyment. He said: That is Zina (fornication).

Source: [Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī, the section on what is mentionedregarding the impermissibility of Mutʿah, and any marriage that is devoid of two witnesses].

Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir 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 (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abi! Bakr and 'Umar.

Book 008, Number 3249:

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 durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

Book 008, Number 3250:

Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

(From Sahih Muslim)

Are you a follower of second caliph Umar? Is he not your imam/ caliph? :grin:

You are here purposely quoting such Wahhabi filth that is against the obvious shia principles. 

When Umar prohibited those two lawful pleasures [muta' of Hajj and mut'a marriage], Imam Ali (‘a), the guardian of Shari'a laws and the supporter of the Holy Prophet (S) stood against it.

https://www.al-islam.org/prohibition-two-lawful-pleasures-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/section-one-muta-hajj

wasalam.

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

All that you quoted is not a Hujjah (authority) over us, only the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace) are. Our epistemology differs from Ahlul-Hadith, as we do not accept beliefs that are against the Qur'an, as the Sunnis, and Twelvers do by believing that the Prophet will intercede for Major sinners (from his Ummah), etc. The point isn't to play this Hadith game where you bring traditions, and I bring traditions. The point is to return to the Qur'an, and the purpose of the Ahl al-Bayt is that they are guardians over the Qur'an. I already concede to the point that you have this in your corpus to the extent of it being mass-transmitted, and unlike Sunnis where you can quote such narrations, you cannot do so with Zaydis as our position (which is the position of the Ahl al-Bayt collectively) is that this practice is strictly prohibited. So, what we would do is concede that both of us have this as established in the corpus of one another, and thereafter seek to see which position is inline with the Qur'an, intellect, and ethics.

If you are interested, we can discuss how it is not:

- A) Qur'anic

- B) Logical

- C) Ethical

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
13 hours ago, Zaidism said:

If you are interested, we can discuss how it is not:

- A) Qur'anic

- B) Logical

- C) Ethical

My stance is inline with verses of quran and authentic ahdith (from sunni & shia sources) is well proven and i am not follower of Sunna of Umar (but I take ahlul bayt (عليه السلام) as role model after the prophet)  and there is some one / your self who always spreads rumors and false claims. :party:

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

I take ahlul bayt (عليه السلام) as role model after the prophet)

 al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāmah Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥoūthī said: As for the Shi’a, and those who are intended are the Imāmīyah. Their deviance from the Ahl al-Bayt, save the Twelve is apparent, and cannot be denied. How can it not be such, while they permit Mutʿah? The honorable men from the sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace) have narrated its abrogation, impermissibility, and the condition of the approval of the guardian, as well as others who we have mentioned. They have not taken their narrations as points of caution, so as to stop and be careful when it comes to their religion. For, the believers halt at points of suspicion. They do not mention anyone other than the Twelve [he intends that they do not rely on anyone from the noble men from the sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn save their Twelve Imāms] in their works. They do not even look at their narrations, or history except for seldom mentioning their revolutions. As for the reliance on al-Bāqir, al-Ṣādiq, al-Riḍhā, and al-Kāẓim (upon them be peace) it is venturing to a mirage. This is because they only narrate from them through intermediaries from their Salaf (predecessors), and not a single one of them is from the sons of the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace). In reality, their reliance is on Hishām b. al-Ḥakam, Hishām b. Sālim, al-Ṭāq, al-Ṭabrisī, al-Ṭūsī, al-Kulaynī, and al-Mufīd. They are the ark of Nuh (Noah) for them, they turn wherever they turn, and the sons of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn are disregarded.

[al-Jawāb al-Kāshif lil-Ibtīlās ‘An Masā’il al-Afrīqī Ilyās, wā al-Jawāb al-Rāqī ‘An Masā’il al-ʿIrāqī, by al-Sayyid al-’Allāmah Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥouthi].
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, Zaidism said:

 al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāmah Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥoūthī said: As for the Shi’a, and those who are intended are the Imāmīyah. Their deviance from the Ahl al-Bayt, save the Twelve is apparent, and cannot be denied.
 

But with the evidences presented by my posts the otherwise is well proven that the Zadiya claims for Mutah are in agreement with the Innovations of Umar.  :party::clap::pushup2:

All  false and foul language by any one whether proclaimed scholar or an ignorant or Wahhabi  man or alike is being thrown back to the wall.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

the Zadiya claims for Mutah are in agreement with the Innovations of Umar.

No, because we don't take any of our beliefs from Umar. You are free to click on the link and see the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt on this matter. 

I am interested in discussing the first three points I mentioned, as they are necessary. Simply disagreeing with a point because Umar holds to it is a fallacy.

Edited by Zaidism
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, uar786 said:

i dont understand if both sunni and shia sources mention that certain companions considered mutah to be Not abrogated then how can you claim ijma on this issue ?

Thank you for your question, like Sunnis, we also have a Salaf. Our Salaf are exclusively from the Ahl al-Bayt, and their consensus to us is binding in religion, as per the saying of the Messenger of Allah (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace): {I leave behind the two weighty things, the book of Allah, and my progeny. If you hold on to them, you will not go astray.}

Imam al-Baqir (upon him be peace) said: (We the Ahl al-Bayt differ in matters of Furu' and Allah will not cause us to reach an errant consensus)

Therefore, we stick to the Madhab of the Ahl al-Bayt, as they are the arks of salvation. When it comes to companion X, and Hadith Y we do not regard it, because the progeny of the Prophet have been clear. You are free to click on the link, and perceive the consensus listed.

Twelvers don't have a Salaf, as for Sunnis I could care less with all due respect, as their tradition is filled with false attributions, such as seeing Allah in the hereafter, intercession being made for major sinners, etc. 

More on our epistemology here: 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 1/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, Zaidism said:

No, because we don't take any of our beliefs from Umar. You are free to click on the link and see the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt on this matter. 

I am interested in discussing the first three points I mentioned, as they are necessary. Simply disagreeing with a point because Umar holds to it is a fallacy.

As per  your scholars: Mutah is impermissible.

Source: [Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī, the section on what is mentioned regarding the impressibility of Mutʿah, and any marriage that is devoid of two witnesses].

As per Umar innovations: Mutah is impermissible.

Book 008, Number 3249:

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 durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.

Conclusion:

Thus both  evidences given above confirm the Logical fallacy of your scholars by going out of teachings of  Ahl alabayt (Itr'ah) (عليه السلام) and taking the innovation of Umar for this Matter/ Mutah.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest
On 1/29/2022 at 6:32 PM, Zaidism said:

Mutʿah is

A) - Not Qur'anic

Salam. Mutah was allowed in Islam during the time of the Holy Prophet SA, until the caliph Omar banned it by threatening to punish people. He forgot that mutah was in the Quran. Do you know Arabic language? Please read Surah 4, ayah 24. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/2/2022 at 9:53 PM, Guest guest said:

until the caliph Omar banned it

Incorrect, it was the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) who ceased this practice. The only sect that differs out of all the Muslims (Shia/Sunni) are the Imamiyah.

On 2/2/2022 at 9:53 PM, Guest guest said:

Please read Surah 4, ayah 24.

al-Imām al-Hādī ilal-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn (upon him be peace) said: Mutʿah for us is enjoying copulation with women through a marriage contract that has the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two just witnesses. Regarding that is what Allāh (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: {So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation} [4:24]. What is meant is whatever one enjoys of them in the marriage through the approval of their guardian, and giving them their compensation which is the dowry.

As for the people of heinousness who seek to find reasons to vindicate what is impermissible by maintaining that the woman can contract her own marriage solely between her, and her husband without the permission of the guardian, we do not give any regard to their saying, nor is it reliable. This is because Allāh (Glorious is He) nullified such statements, and that is through what He made clear of His decree that the marriage is consummated after the approval of the guardians, and He made clear its prohibition for women without their approval. He (Glorious is He) said: {Marry off the ˹free˺ singles among you, as well as the righteous of your bondmen and bondwomen}. And He (Glorious is He) said: {Do not prevent them from remarrying their ex-husbands}. And He (Glorious is He) said: {So marry them with the permission of their families}.

In all of that, Allāh (Glorious is He) orders that the marriage contract is in the hands of the guardians, and not like the falsifiers who lie against Allāh by interpreting it to mean that the matter is in the hands of women. Allāh prohibited them from that, in the same manner he ordered it for their guardians. Allāh is Ever-Kind, Merciful, Omnipotent, and of generous benevolence. How can He permit such a matter, or decree it for them, and He says: {Allāh does not command to obscenities. Are you saying about Allāh what you know not?}.

What obscenity is greater than he who permits women to marry themselves off without [the presence of] men. Women would leave the hands of their guardians, and go against what Allāh had ordered them of their Hijab.

If a Fājir (open-sinner) was found with a Fājirah he, and she would both claim that they were married. This would cause what Allāh had ordered of penalty regarding them to be inapplicable [in society]. If they claimed to be married while witnesses testified against them, then the testimony of any witness would be arbitrary, and none would receive a punishment after their testimony. The Fāsiqīn (sinners) who advance towards Fusūq (wicked deeds) would certainly advance towards lying. They would say whatever would free them from the punishment, and if such was permissible for the Muslims to do then nothing would be established from the rule of the Lord of the Worlds when it comes to those who commit Zina (fornication) from the Fāsiqīn (sinners). Every Fājir (open-sinner) would dare against Allāh [Glorious is He], if such was the case - free is Allāh (Exalted is He) from permitting such - There would be no meaning for His saying (Glorious is He): {As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allāh}. Because whenever a fornicator is caught he would claim that they were married, and she would support him in his claim out of fear for both of them receiving the punishment - if what they claim is true - Nay! Allāh is greatest in estimation, and wisdom, so as to permit what the fabricators impossibly claim.
 

[Kitāb al-Aḥkām, by al-Imām al-Hādī ilal-Ḥaqq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace)]

On 2/2/2022 at 9:53 PM, Guest guest said:

Mutah was allowed in Islam during the time of the Holy Prophet SA

The same manner that alcohol, and praying was permitted at one point in time, it was later abrogated. 

The jurist from the sons of ʿAlī Abū al-Ṭahir Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. ʿAbdullāh b. Muḥammad 
b. ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib narrated to us saying: My father narrated to me, from his father, from Zayd b. ʿAlī: He was asked regarding Mutʿah, he said: It is like [consuming] dead animals, blood, and the flesh of swine.

[Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī]

You literally have the grandson of Imam Zayd, narrating from his father ʿĪsā, from his father al-Imam Zayd! What else do you want? You people are lost in the saying of other than the Ahl al-Bayt. Go click on the PDF I shared and illuminate yourself with those who you have disregarded from the progeny of the Prophet. None of your Hadith works are even compiled by a member, or descendant of the Ahl al-Bayt.

@Muslim2010 - Has presented a wonderful, and concise exposition of Twelver fiqh! This is exactly how it is done, for example when Twelvers see that there are two Sahih Sanad opinions from Imam Sadiq, they take the one that opposes the other sects. Whereas Allah Says: {Most of them follow nothing but ˹inherited˺ assumptions. ˹And˺ surely assumptions can in no way replace the truth} [10:36]

I know this is the position of the Ahl al-Bayt, and I know this is the position of al-Imam al-Sadiq because we don't believe in Taqiyyah in matters of Halal, and Haram. You, however, follow a reactionary fiqh, and a dark corpus that says your Imams hid their own Imamah from their sons, kin, and the rest of the Ummah. It is appalling to say the least, and the Qur'an severely condemns it!

Now, I am not here to discuss whether it is permitted or not, I am here to use the intellect, and the Qur'an - also known as the criterion - to assess whether this terrible practice is legitimate, or not. You can't play your chain games with us in the same way you do with Sunnis, because we don't believe in Adalat al-Sahaba, and we don't believe in anything that contradicts the Qur'an even if al-Imam Zayd himself said it! Therefore, {Bring your proof if ye are truthful} [2:11].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
15 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Now, I am not here to discuss whether it is permitted or not, I am here to use the intellect, and the Qur'an - also known as the criterion - to assess whether this terrible practice is legitimate, or not.

and we don't believe in anything that contradicts the Qur'an even if al-Imam Zayd himself said it! Therefore, {Bring your proof if ye are truthful} [2:11].

1. I have well proven that Zaydi position on the Muta'h is nothing but a false conjecture and they do not know what they should accept that whether Muta'h is permissible or impermissible. 

2.  I do not see any valid evidence yet from your side to accept your claim that Muta is impermissible except the hadith quoted from your scholar for its impermissibility.

3.  Bring the valid evidence if you like to change the END Result that

        Impermissibility of Muta by Zaydi scholars = Impermissibility of Muta by Umar by innovation 

There is no difference in the position of Zaidys and Umar.  Zaydis do accept the innovation made by Umar on Muta (like sunnis) as both have same view  inline to each other.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is quoted as having said:

لولا ان عمر نهی عن المتعه ما زنی الا شقی

If Umar did not prohibit temporary marriage no one would commit adultery except a vicious person. 

https://www.al-islam.org/prohibition-two-lawful-pleasures-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/section-two-temporary-marriage

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Incorrect, it was the Prophet (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) who ceased this practice. The only sect that differs out of all the Muslims (Shia/Sunni) are the Imamiyah.

Does it makes any sense a practice that was allowed in the final years of the Prophet (saws) and was revealed at that time suddenly almost right away abrogated it? There is no mutawatir narrations where people witnessed the prohibition of Mutah by the Prophet. Only a khabar wahid, the same man who supposedly heared it from prophet. That itself can not be an proof to abrogated an quranic verse. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/30/2022 at 5:32 AM, Zaidism said:

Mutʿah is

A) - Not Qur'anic

B) - Completely illogical

C) - Not a teaching of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace) 

Salam!!

A) It is Quranic:

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ }{النساء/۲٤}.

B) It is logical, if you are claiming that it is illogical you are challenging God & His Apostle directly as God mentioned it in Quran and Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) allowed it. 

عن عمران بن الحصين  قال : « نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله تعالى ، ولم تنزل بعدها آية تنسخها ، وأمرنا بها رسول الله ( صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم ) وتمتّعنا بها ، ومات ولم ينهنا عنه ، ثمّ قال : رجل برأيه ما شاء  » صحيح مسلم ۱: ٤۷٤.

C) And how can you even say that while you believe Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) allowed it? 

قال الإمام الباقر : كان علي  يقول: لولا ما سبقني به بُنَيُّ الخطاب ما زنى إلا شَقي

الكليني، الكافي، ج 11، ص 7، أبواب المتعة، ح 2

13 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Now, I am not here to discuss whether it is permitted or not, I am here to use the intellect, and the Qur'an - also known as the criterion - to assess whether this terrible practice is legitimate, or not.

And your intellectual argument i.e., mut'a is non-quranic, illogical, not the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) is proved wrong by means of Sunni & Shi'i books.

جاء عبد الله بن عمير الليثي إلى الإمام الباقر  فقال له: ما تقول في متعة النساء؟ فقال: "أحلها الله في كتابه وعلى لسان نبيه  فهي حلال إلى يوم القيامة

الكليني، الكافي، ج 11، ص 9، أبواب المتعة، ح 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam!!

Wa 'Alaykum al-Salam brother :) 

19 hours ago, Cool said:

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ }{النساء/۲٤}.

The progeny of the Prophet all understood this enjoyment as enjoyment in a lawful marriage, what did you make of the explanation of al-Imam al-Hadi (upon him be peace)?

20 hours ago, Cool said:

mut'a is non-quranic, illogical

Here, I will present an unequivocal example from the Glorious Qur'an itself.

{Do not marry former wives of your fathers—except what was done previously. It was indeed a shameful, despicable, and evil practice} [4:22]

I won't go into the many nuances of it, this will be a straightforward example Insha'Allah. When you go through your corpus you'll find that there are {Fabricated} narrations from Imam al-Sadiq (upon him be peace) where he says there is no need to look to deeply into the history of the women you seek to do Mut'ah with [refer to Majlisi Hadith compilation on Mut'ah], and even today you have jurists who deem this practice permissible with prostitutes! Au'odhubillah, May Allah safeguard us from such evils.

Now, Allah (Exalted is He) is describing the marrying of former wives of your fathers as: shameful, despicable, and evil practice. Through Mut'ah one easily opens this door, because you can have relations with the same women, without anyone knowing. The reason is because you do not deem the necessity of there to be two witnesses, and the approval of the guardian unlike what the followers of the Ahl al-Bayt {the Zaidiyyah} maintain. 

Tell me how are you going to avoid this possibility from occurring? You believe that a man who is married can still do Mut'ah. Well, this individual will go and engage in this practice secretly, thereafter his son will find a women and he will also engage in that practice secretly. Technically, both did nothing wrong according to Twelver jurisprudence, however, according to the word of Allah what they did was: shameful, despicable, and evil practice. 

I believe al-Imam al-Hadi presented the case beautifully, but this is just another quick example from the Criterion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Zaidism said:

The progeny of the Prophet all understood this enjoyment as enjoyment in a lawful marriage, what did you make of the explanation of al-Imam al-Hadi (upon him be peace)?

The verse for Muta being permissible is very clear and there are relevant hadith from Ahl alabayt (عليه السلام). 

If your scholar think otherwise then logically it requires a verse of Quran mentioning prohibition of Muta'ah in clear words and relevant authentic hadith. I have not seen so far any verse of quran for its prohibition from your side in this thread. Thus the view of scholar is nothing but a logical fallacy inline with the view of Umar like taken by sunnis.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Zaidism said:

The progeny of the Prophet all understood this enjoyment as enjoyment in a lawful marriage

Salam!!

What has been shared earlier, should be sufficient for understanding muta'a as a "lawful  marriage". 

16 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Through Mut'ah one easily opens this door, because you can have relations with the same women, without anyone knowing

You are totally misleading the issue and are bringing poor analogies my brother. 

Now imagine a neonate who somehow got separated from his mother and after 20 years he again meet with a woman, who was actually his mother, but the young man not even knew that and never recognized that woman as his biological mother, as he was separated from her in his infancy. They marry each other. Now how would you apply the verse on such a scenario? Neither of them knew their actual relationship. 

Point is that, the example you have presented, can equally be applied to permanent marriages. 

And how would you apply this verse on the clause " what your right hand posses" ( ما ملكت ايمنكم)? 

16 hours ago, Zaidism said:

Technically, both did nothing wrong according to Twelver jurisprudence, however, according to the word of Allah what they did was: shameful, despicable, and evil practice. 

I don't know how would zaidiyyah, technically handle the scenario presented by me!! 

أَنَّهُ مَن عَمِلَ مِنكُمْ سُوءًا بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ تَابَ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَأَنَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

6:54

Thanks to Almighty Lord that He held us responsible for our intentions not for our actions.

إنما الأعمال بِالنيَّات

So if one knowingly do any such act, it would be a shameful, despicable and evil act for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Cool said:

You are totally misleading the issue and are bringing poor analogies my brother. 

Now imagine a neonate who somehow got separated from his mother and after 20 years he again meet with a woman, who was actually his mother, but the young man not even knew that and never recognized that woman as his biological mother, as he was separated from her in his infancy. They marry each other. Now how would you apply the verse on such a scenario? Neither of them knew their actual relationship. 

You have conceded to the point that the verse(s) I shared in question offers an implication towards the practice of Mut'ah, as for the analogy you gave it is a direct response to your own position for permanent marriage as well, not us. The reason is because unlike Twelvers we necessitate that for permanent marriages there needs to be the approval of a guardian, and the presence of two witnesses. Therefore, this scenario which you have drawn also serves as a refutation to your own concept of marriage. 

Let us take your mother, and son scenario in lieu of the conditions of the Zaidiyyah. We find that before conceiving the son the mother first had to get married, correct? Well, when she married the father of the son there were two witnesses present, and her guardian had approved. This ensures that the lineage of the son is preserved, unlike in cases of Mut'ah. and don't tell me DNA tests, not only are they recent, over 80% of the world has no access to them. 

Now, for whatever odd reason the son is separated from the mother from birth as you say, let us presume due to a war of some sort, or invasion. This son finds a woman who is at least twenty or so years his senior. Again, this goes to show the fragility of your jurisprudence, as even if she was married before there still needs to be the approval of her guardian, and the presence of two witnesses!

So, the son brings this woman, who he does not know that she is his mother. The first thing that is done is checking the lineages of both the son, and the mother, and the inquiry posed to her guardian. By going through this checking process, a) the witnesses, b) the guardian of the mother - did she have a prior child? - and c) the lineages of both. It is impossible for this marriage to occur, however, it is possible in lieu of the Twelver school, because they'd just say the mother is a non-virgin, and if she is 'financially-capable' some nonsensical notion brought forth by modernity then there is no need for this checking process to occur. 

Moreover, I would like to add that once parties are brought together, the guardian will undoubtedly know that the woman was previously married, why? Well, unlike Twelvers we necessitate the presence of witnesses, and guardians, and especially under an Islamic government there will be documentation of this marriage - not some nonsense done in secrecy, or underground Mut'ah brothels - so, she will be asked the million-dollar question: Did your previous husband enter into you? If yes, did you have children? Clearly, she would know. Therefore, the marriage would halt due to (a) not knowing where this lost child is, (b) syncing both lineages, or not knowing both lineages, (c) the age difference, (d) inquiry as to where both spent their lives living, and who the previous husband was, as well as who the father, and mother of the son are. 

This is an impossibility to occur, however, as you have wonderfully pointed out it is a possibility to occur according to the Twelver framework. Therefore, I invite you to the path of the Prophet, and his progeny whom he has said regarding them: 

{I leave behind that which you hold on to, you will not go astray! The book of Allah, and my progeny}

11 hours ago, Cool said:

Thanks to Almighty Lord that He held us responsible for our intentions not for our actions.

Even polytheists have good intentions, our discussion revolves around which tradition promotes:  shameful, despicable, and evil practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam!!

Wa 'Alaykum al-Salam :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
32 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

The reason is because unlike Twelvers we necessitate that for permanent marriages there needs to be the approval of a guardian, and the presence of two witnesses.

I was expecting that you have some knowledge about mut'a marriage but it appears that you are blank about it. 

So a self employed, well established widow cannot marry? Just because she don't have any guardian? 

And for your information, approval of wali is required for every mut'a marriage where bride is virgin. It is also better (not necessary) to have two witnesses for mut'a marriage. Mut'a is a private contract made in a verbal or written format. And in both the formats, both man & woman is bound to honor their commitments in light of the verses of Quran. 

Now coming to your position on permanent marriages, again I find you are portraying that man cannot carryout permanent marriage in secrecy. This is where you are trying to hide the truth. A man can have wife in USA and in Canada at the same time. Man can take any woman into permanent marriage contract secretly. It is not necessary for him or for woman to have any wali. The clause of witnesses still stand there for both male & female. 

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Therefore, this scenario which you have drawn also serves as a refutation to your own concept of marriage. 

It simply refutes that which you have tried to impose on every marriage contract whether temporary or permanent, irrespective of shi'i or sunni or Zaidiyyah.

1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

Well, when she married the father of the son there were two witnesses present, and her guardian had approved. This ensures that the lineage of the son is preserved,

lol, I am really laughing. Please let me know how can one sort out the lineage of a neonate who got separated from his mother in his infancy? Who told the boy about his mother or his father? 

You can assume that the mother of boy got married in 15 years of age and her husband died one year after marriage and she gave birth to a son immediate after the death of her husband. The mother 16 years of age was separated from her son at any protest procession. A couple from another city find the kid crying in his cart. They took him with them and they failed to find the guardian of that kid so they decided to keep the kid with them. 

The kid when reached to his twenties met with a 36 years old woman (his biological mother) and they fall in love with each other and get married. 

Notes:

The marriage of boy's mother and father was a permanent marriage. The clauses of approval of guardian and witnesses were fulfilled. 

The nikah was recited by Zaidiyyah Imams from both sides and the couple belongs to Zaidiyyah creed. 

The young boy did permanent marriage with woman not knowing that she is his biological mother. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It seems this discussion about the permissibility of mut'ah will never end. So many threads were created, and the same arguments are always brought. Truly an example of DISagreeing to disagree. But this is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Basic Members

No one is interested in hearing your interpretation of quran. As for logical you don't accept rationale reasoning to be a source of morality so any rationale argument you bring 

1. Will be inductive 

2. Be self refuting 

Most of what you're saying here is conjecture next time read what you're sending before sending it 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...