According to Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq Mutʿah is categorically ḥarām

[Zaydism]

According to Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq Mutʿah is categorically ḥarām for Zaydīs

Zaydī sources:

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbd al-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 Zinā (fornication).

— Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 247)

Sunnī sources: 

al-Bayhaqī narrated with his chain from Bassām al-Ṣayrafī, he said: I asked Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad regarding Mutʿah, and I described it. He said to me: That is Zinā (fornication). 

— Sunnan al-Bayhaqī (the chain is reliable)

Ismāʿīlī sources:

al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān al-Maghribī said: And from Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, peace be upon him, a man asked him regarding Mutʿah. He said: Describe it to me, he said: A man encounters a woman, and says: I will marry you with this Dirham, or these two Dirhams for an encounter that will last a day, or two. He said: That is Zinā (fornication), and only a fājir (wicked evil-doer) would do that. 

— Daʿāʾm al-Islām

Twelver sources: 

From al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, peace be upon him, he said when describing Mutʿah: Only a fājir (wicked evil-doer) would do it. 

— Biḥār al-Anwār

The Twelver al-Majlisī also reported: From ʿAbdullāh b. Sinān, he said: I asked Abā ʿAbdullāh, peace be upon him, regarding Mutʿah. So, he said: Do not dirty yourself with it. 

— Biḥār al-Anwār

al-Imām al-Ḥasan b. Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 247 AH) said regarding Mutʿah:

The Progeny of the Prophet ﷺ have reached a consensus regarding its despicable practice and the impermissibility to partake in it. They (the Ahl al-Bayt) said: it was permissible during a particular time [of migration, and war] and the Prophet ﷺ then deemed it impermissible, and ended its practice. It was abrogated by the waiting period, and inheritance. They have also reached a consensus that there cannot be a marriage with the absence of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses.

— al-Jāmʿ al-Kāfī 

 https://t.me/TheZaydiSchool

Edited May 9, 2024 by Zaydism

[Qa'im]

These are from non-Twelver sources:

قَالَ ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي مَنْ أُصَدِّقُ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا، قَالَ بِالْكُوفَةِ: " §لَوْلَا مَا سَبَقَ مِنْ رَأْيِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - أَوْ قَالَ: مِنْ رَأْيِ ابْنِ الْخَطَّابِ - لَأَمَرْتُ بِالْمُتْعَةِ، ثُمَّ مَا زَنَا إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ "

Ibn Jurayj said: One that I trust (man usaddiq) informed me that `Ali said in Kufa: Had it not been for the said opinion of `Umar b. al-Khattab – or he said: opinion of Ibn al-Khattab – I would have prescribed mut`a. Then, none would fornicate except a wretched person.

http://islamport.com/l/mtn/1187/15216.htm#

 

ولم يرخص في نكاح المتعة إلاّ عمران بن الحصين وعبد الله بن عباس وبعض أصحابه وطائفة من أهل البيت

None permitted mut`a marriage except `Imran b. al-Hussayn, `Abdullah b. `Abbas and some of his companions, and a group from the Ahl al-Bayt.

https://quran-tafsir.net/taalaby/sura4-aya24.html

 

عبد الرزاق ، عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس ، يراها الآن حلالا ، وأخبرني أنه كان يقرأ : " فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل فآتوهن أجورهن " .

`Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Jurayj. He said: `Ata’ informed me that he heard Ibn `Abbas saw it (mut’a) as halal right now. He informed me that he would recite: “If you do mut’a with one of them for a time period then give them their due dower.” (Quran 4:24)

قال: وقال ابن عباس فى حرف أبى: إلى أجل مسمى. قال أبو عمر: وقرأها أيضا – هكذا إلى أجل مسمى – على بن حسين، وابنه أبو جعفر محمد بن على، وابنه جعفر بن محمد

He said: Ibn `Abbas said: In the codex of Ubay: “ila ajalin musamma”.

Abu `Umar said: `Ali b. Husayn, his son Abu Ja`far Muhammad b. `Ali, and his son Ja`far b. Muhammad would also read it like this: “ila ajalin musamma”.

https://islamweb.net/ar/library/index.php?page=bookcontents&ID=13382&flag=1&bk_no=73

https://ia600203.us.archive.org/15/items/waq2076/tmheed10.pdf

[Zaydism]

 

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

These are from non-Twelver sources:

Narrated `Ali:

I said to Ibn `Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

— Sahih al-Bukhari

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace) narrates from his forefathers, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: ((The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) forbade Mutʿah during the year of Khaybar)).

 — Musnad al-Imām Zayd

'Ali b. Abi Talib reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited on the Day of Khaibar the contracting of temporary marriage with women and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Malik narrated this hadith on the authority of the same chain of trans- witters that 'Ali b. Abil Talib said to a person:

You are a person led astray; Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade us (to do Mut'a), as is stated In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya b. Malik.

— Sahih Muslim

Muhammad b. 'Ali narrated on the authority of his father 'Ali that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh the sons of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyya from their father, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace): He said to Ibn ʿAbbās when he was giving Fatwas (legal verdicts) on Mutʿah: Desist, for the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it on the day of Khaybar, as well as the meat of the domesticated donkey.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

al-Imām al-Hārūnī narrated with his chain to al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh from their father Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (Allāh is pleased with him) that he heard his father ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon him be peace) say when he encountered Ibn ʿAbbās, and it reached him that he was permitting Mutʿah with women, he (upon him be peace):

You are a lost man! The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it, as well as eating the meat of the domesticated donkey.

— Amālī al-Imām Abī Ṭālib

al-Imām Aḥmad b. Sulaimān narrated from ʿAbdullāh al-Maḥḍh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan, from his father, from his grandfather, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade Mutʿah with women on the day of Khaybar, he said: If I find anyone practicing it, I will have him lashed.

 — Uṣūl al-Aḥkām

The jurist from the sons of ʿAlī Abū al-Ṭāhir 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

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī (upon them be peace) was asked regarding Mutʿah, he said: It was a form of leeway that came from the Qurʾān, and then the Qurʾān abrogated it when the waiting period [for women], and inheritance was revealed, and this is the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt (upon them be peace).

It was said: O Son of the Messenger of Allāh, what abrogated it? He said: The saying of Allāh, the Exalted: {And those who guard their private privates} [al-Muʾminūn]. Allāh, the Exalted, only permitted the wife, and the concubine.

— Majmūʿ kutb wā Rasāʾil al-Imām Zayd

The ascetic of the Ahl al-Bayt ʿAbdullāh b. Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (upon them be peace), narrates from his father, from ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan that he said to a man who would marry through Mutʿah: Be wary of Allāh, and desist from what you are doing.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from Miskīn al-Samān, he said: I asked Muḥammad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah (The Pure Soul) regarding Mutʿah, he said: Do not engage in it.

 — Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain, from ʿAbd al-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 Zinā (fornication).

— Amālī al-Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā b. Zayd b. ʿAlī

[Zaydism]

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

One that I trust (man usaddiq)

The person is Majhul, if we accept this methodology, then you would have to accept the narration in Sunnan from Bayhaqi since all the rijal are Thiqat, with exception to Abu Muhammad who although is Majhul has reliable Shuyukh. 

20 hours ago, Qa'im said:

None permitted mut`a marriage except `Imran b. al-Hussayn, `Abdullah b. `Abbas and some of his companions, and a group from the Ahl al-Bayt.

Right, then he was corrected by Imam Ali. Ibn Abbas is not an authority that trumps the decree of Imam Ali for us, as Imam Ali clarified that the position of Ibn Abbas was mistaken. 

[Qa'im]

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Muhammad b. 'Ali narrated on the authority of his father 'Ali that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.

— Sahih Muslim

Muḥammad b. Mansūr al-Murādī narrates with his chain from al-Ḥasan, and ʿAbdullāh the sons of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafīyya from their father, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace): He said to Ibn ʿAbbās when he was giving Fatwas (legal verdicts) on Mutʿah: Desist, for the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ forbade it on the day of Khaybar, as well as the meat of the domesticated donkey.

Narrated `Ali:

I said to Ibn `Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."

— Sahih al-Bukhari

al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn (upon them be peace) narrates from his forefathers, from ʿAlī (upon him be peace), he said: ((The Messenger of Allāh (upon him and his Ahl al-Bayt be peace) forbade Mutʿah during the year of Khaybar)).

 — Musnad al-Imām Zayd

'Ali b. Abi Talib reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited on the Day of Khaibar the contracting of temporary marriage with women and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.

Even though the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) allegedly banned mut`a at Khaybar, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) allowed it again after Khaybar at the Conquest of Mecca. From Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي رَبِيعَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، سَبْرَةَ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَامَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ أَمَرَ أَصْحَابَهُ بِالتَّمَتُّعِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ – قَالَ – فَخَرَجْتُ أَنَا وَصَاحِبٌ لِي مِنْ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ حَتَّى وَجَدْنَا جَارِيَةً مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ كَأَنَّهَا بَكْرَةٌ عَيْطَاءُ فَخَطَبْنَاهَا إِلَى نَفْسِهَا وَعَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهَا بُرْدَيْنَا فَجَعَلَتْ تَنْظُرُ فَتَرَانِي أَجْمَلَ مِنْ صَاحِبِي وَتَرَى بُرْدَ صَاحِبِي أَحْسَنَ مِنْ بُرْدِي فَآمَرَتْ نَفْسَهَا سَاعَةً ثُمَّ اخْتَارَتْنِي عَلَى صَاحِبِي فَكُنَّ مَعَنَا ثَلاَثًا ثُمَّ أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِفِرَاقِهِنَّ ‏.‏

Sabra b. Ma’bad reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) permitted his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women in the Year of Victory. So I and a friend of mine from Banu Sulaim went out, until we found a young woman of Banu Amir who was like a young she-camel having a long neck. We proposed to her for contracting temporary marriage with us, and presented to her our cloaks (as dower). She began to look and found me more handsome than my friend, but found the cloak of my friend more beautiful than my cloak. She thought in her mind for a while, but then preferred me to my friend. So I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us to part with them (such women).

The sahaba themselves disagreed on this subject, with even Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. `Abdullah al-Ansari, Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Mu`awiya, `Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Salama b. Umayya b. Khalaf believing in mut`a after the passing of the Messenger ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Then there is the very interesting fiqh issue of donkey meat, which is banned alongside mut`a in the Khaybar hadith, yet it is considered halal by some.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

The person is Majhul, if we accept this methodology, then you would have to accept the narration in Sunnan from Bayhaqi since all the rijal are Thiqat, with exception to Abu Muhammad who although is Majhul has reliable Shuyukh. 

It is interesting that you say this, as there is a possibility that من أصدق is الصادق عليه السلام himself, the namesake of this thread. There are others that also quoted this from `Ali (عليه السلام) as well.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Right, then he was corrected by Imam Ali. Ibn Abbas is not an authority that trumps the decree of Imam Ali for us, as Imam Ali clarified that the position of Ibn Abbas was mistaken. 

The fact that there were "a group (ta'ifa) of the Ahl al-Bayt" that believed in the validity of mut`a shows (1) there was no ijma` on this issue among the `Itra, and (2) it is plausible that the Imami line are the ones that preached its validity. The narrations of al-Sadiq that permit mut`a in our books are countless, as were the number of students of his that allowed it - with its respective rules. To deny all this tawatur would be a massive oversight, and it would be a bit like saying "Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil was actually an Imami, despite what all his students said."

This is, ultimately, a khilaf issue in furu` al-din - how much you want to invest into arguing this topic is really up to you, as there are bigger and more serious differences between us.

[Diaz]

1 hour ago, Qa'im said:

So I and a friend of mine from Banu Sulaim went out, until we found a young woman of Banu Amir who was like a young she-camel having a long neck. We proposed to her for contracting temporary marriage with us, and presented to her our cloaks (as dower). She began to look and found me more handsome than my friend, but found the cloak of my friend more beautiful than my cloak. She thought in her mind for a while, but then preferred me to my friend. So I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) commanded us to part with them (such women).

This is how men use to make mutah before? Now if we try this to any women, al fatiha will be read to us. 

[Zaydism]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:51 AM, Zaydism said:

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-Aṣbahānī

For the sake of honesty, and sincerity in the eyes of Allāh. There is discussion on al-Aṣbahānī, as he could be Majhūl since we can’t - decisively - say that he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh al-Aṣbahānī, and the attempts to indicate that are speculative. 

Additionally, 

On 5/9/2024 at 11:51 AM, Zaydism said:

al-Bayhaqī narrated with his chain

All the narrators in the chain are reliable, with exception to Abū Muḥammad who is Majhūl. Thus, this narration as well cannot be considered decisive evidence. May Allāh forgive, and guide us all! 

 

Edited May 11, 2024 by Zaydism

[Zaydism]

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

there are bigger and more serious differences between us.

Thank you, I would love to discuss this with you.

I find the orthodox Zaydī understanding to be the most viable view when it comes to fiqh and creed, due to the Zaydiyya as a tradition being the most practical, and decisive in preserving the views of the 5 members of the cloak. 

Namely, in so far as one is concerned, if there is a sense of authority and inherent superiority of the views of Imām ʿAlī and Ḥasanayn, then we are to seek the most confident and decisive means of transmission which may allow us to reach certainty that X was the view of Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and this is why orthodox Zaydīs emphasize the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

Now, there are clear assumptions in what I say. Therefore, these assumptions will be mentioned and clarified.

The first assumption: the members of the cloak are authorities, and their views are objectively binding. Namely, if we find Imām ʿAlī saying view X and Ibn ʿAbbās saying view Y, we would - objectively - take the view of Imām ʿAlī only insofar as he is inherently an authority.

This is in contrast to say us seeing Ibn ʿAbbās saying view X, and Ibn Masʿūd saying view Y, in which we would have to do further investigation as one cannot de-facto say that view X is superior to view Y, while with Imām ʿAlī we can de-facto say his view is superior and binding without further investigation.

Defense of first assumption: The members of the cloak are inherently authorities because they are specified as those whom impurity was removed from in the established Sunnah, where these 5 are singled out. The impurity removed from them cannot be a physical impurity, such as blood, sweat, etc; thus what remains in this proposition if it is not a physical impurity is a spiritual impurity. Since spiritual impurity is negated from them, this means they - by logical necessity - cannot be said to be subject to major sin. 

In so far as they’re not subject to major sin, they would never lie against the Prophet ﷺ. For, to attribute a lie to him is a major sin that necessitates hellfire, but they - out of binding proof - are foremost in paradise and thus can never commit a major sin. 

Further support: love is obligated for those 5, in Ṣūrah Ash-Shūrā it is established that love for them is obligated, and some Sunnīs define Thaqalayn as being love for them too. I will accept that understanding of the Thaqalayn, and even based upon that unfair understanding it establishes that allegiance to them is objectively binding in matters of fiqh and creed, why? 

Because Allāh says  {You will not find a people who believe in Allāh and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allāh and His Messenger} [al-Mujādila: 22]. Since affection is necessitates for them, then necessarily they won’t oppose Allāh and His messenger ﷺ. 

Allāh also says: {O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies} [al-Mumtaḥina: 1]. Since love is necessitated for them, being an ally to them is. Now, if we take the unfair Sunni understanding of Ghadīr, we can also understand that Imām ʿAlī will never be an enemy of Allāh, because being an ally/friend to an enemy of Allāh is categorically ḥarām. Thus, they are objectively the friends of Allāh, and thus they will never exit from the mercy and support of Allāh. This means that those who cling unto them will also be encompassed in this mercy, and will be accepted by Allāh. So, they are the strongest handhold.

Allāh says: {O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allāh does not guide the wrongdoing people} [al-Māʾidah: 51].

When Allāh commanded to express love for them, it serves as a testimony that they are not adversaries to Allāh and His Messenger, and they are not enemies to Allāh or the believers. Thus, they are necessarily - always - upon the truth, and always upon guidance. Otherwise, it would entail that Allāh commanded us to love them while possibly in instance X they committed a major sin, or exited his mercy and therefore implicating us in loving them while they were showcasing opposition to Allāh! Far be it from them, and far be it from Allāh’s immaculate perfection and wisdom to cause us to fall into this.  

Now, in so far as their authority is established - objectively - by using the most uncharitable Sunni reading, what remains is defending assumption 2.

Assumption two: The Zaydīyya as a school in its orthodox formulation is the best means to ascertaining what the views of the members of the cloak are, since their authority is binding, we just need the best epistemological foundation to ascertain their views and the Zaydīs provide the best foundation for that.

Defense two: The Zaydīs emphasize familial transmission from both lines, the Ḥasanī and Ḥusaynī lines because it is not sound to say that what is mass-transmitted as an understanding and teaching between the early Ahl al-Bayt, and those who followed them in preserving their views is not a teaching of Imām ʿAlī. For, rationally speaking, the closest to the members of the cloak are their sons, and the best to preserve their views are the *scholars* from among *their progeny* who attribute their view to them. There is no greater route of transmission than this, and to challenge a claimed consensus is not to challenge the concept of the consensus. If some were to - fallaciously - argue that some Zaydīs claimed X was a consensus, and it turns out it wasn’t, this doesn’t disprove Zaydiyya and the epistemological basis of the Zaydiyya in the same manner that when someone shows that a claimed Ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth turns out to be weak. This doesn’t therefore render other claims of ḥadīths being Ṣaḥīḥ, or the epistemological basis of jarḥ and Taʿdīl as not being one which is robust, and reliable. 

Henceforth, to be an orthodox Zaydī, we must merely say that we adhere to the members of the cloak and the consensus from among the transmission of their sons. 

Suppose someone says that Zaydīs held to X, and Imām ʿAlī held to Y. Well, if it is established - decisively - that Imām ʿAlī held to Y, then it would in fact be the Zaydī view and the ones who claim to be Zaydīs and hold to X are not Zaydīs because they are henceforth contradicting their own axioms. 

So, to conclude anyone who is interested in the views of the 5 members of the cloak and who cares about adhering to them will follow a Zaydī epistemology. Sunnism is not interested in transmitting the views of the progeny, so they have cut the link which is the progeny. Twelvers are not interested in the views of the progeny, because they (i) don’t consider the consensus of the scholars, and (ii) take from the transmission of other than the progeny. The singular authority of 1 member of the progeny is trumped by the collective authority of the community of the progeny, because when you have 1 Ḥusaynī saying view X, and say 10 Ḥasanīs, and Ḥusaynī saying view Y. Then, necessarily anybody would take the consensus. However, to do so is to enter a Zaydī understanding.

We believe that what represents the views of the Ahl al-Bayt is the consensus of their Salaf, because the consensus represents what ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn held. Therefore, it is not following particular Fāṭimīs, but clinging onto the consensus of the scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt who preserved the views of their forefathers from among their Salaf, from the sons of al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn.Hence, we hold as creed what was held in agreement between ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿAbidīn, al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, Zayd b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Bāqir, Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and ʿAbdullāh b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan. 

‎al-Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī, al-Imām al-Nafs al-Zakīyya, al-Imām al-Nafs al-Radhīyya, and al-Imām al-Qāsim al-Rassī lived during the first 200 years and were all upon agreement in creed. These honorable men preserved the views of the prior generations such as Ḥasan b. Ḥasan, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan, ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿAbidīn who in turn preserved the views of the members of the cloak. They were all upon one Manhaj. We took our creed from them because the Prophet ﷺ told us to cling unto the Qurʾān and his Ahl al-Bayt and he didn’t limit them to a number "12," or restrict the line of Imām Ḥasan through ḥadīth Thaqalayn.

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

"Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil was actually an Imami, despite what all his students said."

I don't accept this understanding, with all due respect, and if we were to take it. Then, I would just point to how both the sons of the Imāms and their kindred were themselves upon the Zaydī creed, and that they would say - contrary - to those students that "our uncle, father, brother, nephew did not preach this divine Imāma." Also, there perhaps is an assumption that all the students of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq were a monolith, whereas there many shades. In fact, among the Imāmis themselves there were those claimed they were demi-gods, and we see these heretics today as they argue for this understanding through Neoplatonic philosophy, wherein the Imāms are the the intellects that emanated from the One. So, in reality this doesn't lead us anywhere, other than giving credence to the Zaydī conception in so far as we have their sons, brethern, and nephews negating these attributions of divine Imāma. 

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The narrations of al-Sadiq that permit mut`a in our books are countless, as were the number of students of his that allowed it - with its respective rules.

I am glad you mention this, as we also have to define what we mean by "Mutʿah" here, my critique against Mutʿah is the one which says no wali, and no witnesses whichis permitted by Sistani if the girl isn't a virgin. I believe that this is completely anti-Quranic, and illogical, in addition to the Zaydi transmission of the progeny, and their consensus on the necessity of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses for a marriage contract to be accurate. I will share the argument from Imām Hādī (d.298) which was against this form of Mutʿah advocated by scholars like Sistani: 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn 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}. 

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 Ḥijāb
 
If a Fājir (open-sinner) was found with a Fājira 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].

As you can see, this is a well known methodology of the progeny, which is negating anything that contradicts the Quran. Therefore, we see how the Imām attacks this not on the basis of narrations, but on the basis of it explicitly conflicting with the Quran. Then, the further buttressing would be added via the narrations of the progeny, and their infallible consensus.  

19 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The sahaba themselves disagreed on this subject, with even Asma' bint Abi Bakr, Jabir b. `Abdullah al-Ansari, Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Abbas, Mu`awiya, `Amr b. Hurayth, Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Salama b. Umayya b. Khalaf believing in mut`a after the passing of the Messenger ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

I am not a Sunni, and mentioning Mu`awiya as one of its advocates actually makes more confident in rejecting this (lol). In reality, all the companions could have done Mut`a, I would equally consider them misguided in as much as they are going against our Master Imām ʿAlī. For, he is the criterion for us, and if all the companions held a view, and Imām ʿAlī held a view - stating it is of the Sunnah - then, we would take the view of Imām ʿAlī with pride, and certainty.

[Qa'im]

5 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Thank you, I would love to discuss this with you.

I find the orthodox Zaydī understanding to be the most viable view when it comes to fiqh and creed, due to the Zaydiyya as a tradition being the most practical, and decisive in preserving the views of the 5 members of the cloak. 

Namely, in so far as one is concerned, if there is a sense of authority and inherent superiority of the views of Imām ʿAlī and Ḥasanayn, then we are to seek the most confident and decisive means of transmission which may allow us to reach certainty that X was the view of Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and this is why orthodox Zaydīs emphasize the consensus of the Ahl al-Bayt. 

People disagree over the view of Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام). Everybody but the Ibadis claim him, and even most of the Sufi turuq claim to get their teachings from him. The reality is that Amir al-Mu'minin could not teach much to the masses due to the political circumstances of his time. The same can be argued with al-Hasan and al-Husayn, which is why every group must (at some point) look to the `Itra, or the sahaba and tabi`in, etc. Imamah is our mechanism for determining what truly belongs to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام) and what does not. So to prove or disprove a furu` issue to Imamis, ijtihad must be done from an Imami framework - and just randomly quoting narrations from different sects in your first two posts won't cut it. There are many hadiths I can quote back to you, but ultimately you won't accept them either, because of what Sunni rijal says about this narrator, or what your mashayikh said about that verse, or what someone's aql said about an issue, or whichever tool you choose to use to bring you back to your original conclusion.

[Zaydism]

25 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

Imamah is our mechanism for determining what truly belongs to Amir al-Mu'minin (عليه السلام) and what does not.

It is a logical, and consistent framework. I don’t think Imāmism as a concept is irrational, in fact it is brilliant and lovely. However, we are all bound by Naṣ from the messenger ‎ﷺ. There is no evidence for any Naṣ from Allāh and His messenger ‎ﷺ regarding any Imām after Imām Ḥusayn صلوات الله عليه, and while the Salaf of the Ahl al-Bayt are undisputed in loftiness, I don’t see why one would accept the transmission of Imām ʿAskarī over Imām al-Uṭrūsh, or that of Imām Kāẓim over Imām Qāsim Rassī, or that of Imām Naqī over Imām Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq عليهم جميعا سلام الله. Not only do we see the nonexistence of a Naṣ, we see the progeny attacking it - say for instance the notorious Imām Zayd report which you’re well aware of that I shared when I was first having doubts, as well as the Ṣaḥīḥ report in Ṭabaqāt, the Sīra of the Salaf of the ʿitra who are known to be upright and virtuous, like Imām Nafs Zakīyya, Imām Ḥusayn al-Fakhkhī, Imām Ḥusayn b. Zayd, Imām Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā, Imām Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh, Imām ʿAbdullāh b. Ḥasan! And many luminaries from the Prophetic progeny. In the words of Imām Qāsim Rassī عليه السلام, he would say the Prophet ‎ﷺ didn’t hide his Prophethood from Abū Jahal, and Abū Lahab, so why are the Imāmīs claiming our own family members are hiding this supposed divine Imāma from us? In reality, Imāma is a powerful pillar, but we can only follow the Nuṣūṣ to where they may lead us. I am very firm on the Naṣ for my master Imām ʿAlī, and Ḥasanayn صلوات الله عليهما and that is precisely based upon the inferences from the Qurʾān, and the established Sunnah through mass-transmitted reports such as Ghadīr, Manzila, Thaqalayn, al-Kisā, et al; as well as deductive inferences from the Qurʾān that - necessarily - entail the infallibility of the members of the cloak. Now, when it comes to other than the 5 members of the cloak, for internal and external critiques there just isn’t any evidence at all for anyone after them - all one can  reasonably argue, so as to preserve the مصداق of Thaqalayn is to indicate that the consensus is واجب لغيره, and that the members of the cloak are لذاتهم. Such that, the infallibility of the consensus is one which is derivative from that of the members of the cloak, in as much as the consensus - in principle - mirrors the views of the members of cloak. Thus, we are to look at the *scholars* of the progeny, and their consensus in each *طبقة* such that if a consensus is established in generation 2, then if someone from the 3rd generation would negate a consensus of the 2nd generation. Then, لا يعتد بقوله. Why? Because this is an epistemic principle, and robust epistemological means, in addition to the evidence of ʿAql, Qurʾān, and mass-transmitted Sunnah. This is actually the point, what the Zaydīyya are saying is the the evidence of deduction from ʿAql, inference from the محكمات of the Qurʾān, and the mass-transmitted Sunnah cannot ever conflict with each other. Such that, a proper deduction from ʿAql, a proper inference from Qurʾān, and a meaning derived from the established Sunnah would not conflict, but compliment each other - the saying "all roads lead to Rome," is very applicable here. Also, I am not - humbly - speaking from assumption, I have also sought to challenge this through tackling the metaphysics of the Zaydīyya, and I saw how reason leads to divine simplicity, I saw how if one reads the محكمات of the Qurʾān, one cannot hold as the Imāmīs and Sunnīs do of intercession for unrepentant major-sinners, and exiting the hellfire after entering it. I saw how the Sunnah itself cannot be left in the hands of those who are enemies to the Ahl al-Bayt, who seek any excuse to attenuate the Shīʿa of the Āl, I saw how we also cannot leave it in the hands of a turāth which part of it negates the other part of it, where its supposed greats are cursed, and at times opponents to the most righteous from among the Salaf of the Ahl al-Bayt. Yes, one can conveniently say Taqīyya, but this patchwork will bring forth greater problems than it solves and above all it is contra the Sīra of the Prophets, and the reality of the Qurʾān. Allāh is far more merciful, and far exalted above leaving us at the mercy of Ahl al-Ḥadīth, or at the mercy of manuscripts, and dubious rijāl. Rather, what we need to establish the Dīn of Allāh is unfalsifiable, deductive, and ecumenical proofs. Yet, to rely on such is to precisely be led to the Madhab of the Ahl al-Bayt as preserved, and articulated by the Zaydīyya. 

[Abu_Zahra]

On 5/11/2024 at 3:03 PM, Zaydism said:

I am glad you mention this, as we also have to define what we mean by "Mutʿah" here, my critique against Mutʿah is the one which says no wali, and no witnesses whichis permitted by Sistani if the girl isn't a virgin. I believe that this is completely anti-Quranic, and illogical, in addition to the Zaydi transmission of the progeny, and their consensus on the necessity of the approval of the guardian, and the presence of two witnesses for a marriage contract to be accurate. I will share the argument from Imām Hādī (d.298) which was against this form of Mutʿah advocated by scholars like Sistani: 

al-Imām al-Hādī ilā l-Ḥaq Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn 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. 

As salamu alaikum brother

If this is the case, then the discussion is no longer about the validity of permissibility of mut'ah, rather the conditions of it. 

If your position is that mut'ah is permissible,  but with witnesses and the approval of a guardian, then the title of the thread 'mut'ah is categorically haram ' is inaccurate. 

[Zaydism]

On 5/11/2024 at 11:31 PM, Abu_Zahra said:

As salamu alaikum brother

If this is the case, then the discussion is no longer about the validity of permissibility of mut'ah, rather the conditions of it. 

If your position is that mut'ah is permissible,  but with witnesses and the approval of a guardian, then the title of the thread 'mut'ah is categorically haram ' is inaccurate. 

Walaykom al-Salām, if one defines Mutʿah like Sistani, then the response would be that of Imām Hādī صلوات الله عليه via the Qurʾān and ʿAql, in showcasing how such a conception is anti-Qurʾānic. If, however, the definition then becomes a Mutʿah with the approval of the guardian, and two just witnesses. Then, the discussion would be on whether it is lawful to marry with the intention of divorce. The thread is not inaccurate since this is ultimately the Zaydī view from Imām Ṣādiq عليه السلام, whom we claim to be a Zaydī and sharing these reports are supplements. Now, the reports shared by Qaʾim were not ones that indicated any marriage with the presence of a walī + 2 witnesses, and I am more than happy to discuss that if it is conceded that Mutʿah without the approval of the guardian, and 2 witnesses is fornication. So, I don’t think it’s genuine to just conveniently shift the goal post from the Sistani form or Mutʿah so as to evade the Qurʾānic argument, this conception itself is Awlā in refutation, then we can move on to the other conceptions. 

[Abu_Zahra]

14 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Walaykom al-Salām, if one defines Mutʿah like Sistani, then the response would be that of Imām Hādī صلوات الله عليه via the Qurʾān and ʿAql, in showcasing how such a conception is anti-Qurʾānic. If, however, the definition then becomes a Mutʿah with the approval of the guardian, and two just witnesses. Then, the discussion would be on whether it is lawful to marry with the intention of divorce. The thread is not inaccurate since this is ultimately the Zaydī view from Imām Ṣādiq عليه السلام, whom we claim to be a Zaydī and sharing these reports are supplements. Now, the reports shared by Qaʾim were not ones that indicated any marriage with the presence of a walī + 2 witnesses, and I am more than happy to discuss that if it is conceded that Mutʿah without the approval of the guardian, and 2 witnesses is fornication. So, I don’t think it’s genuine to just conveniently shift the goal post from the Sistani form or Mutʿah so as to evade the Qurʾānic argument, this conception itself is Awlā in refutation, then we can move on to the other conceptions. 

 

Mut'ah has existed a lot longer than Sistani or any other contemporary scholar. Again, you seem to be confusing two different discussions here, the first being mut'ah and it's permissibility and the second being the conditions (permission and witnesses). 

As a side note, most fuqaha do require permission of the guardian, so essentially the only point of contention here seems to be the requirement of witnesses. 

[Guest Imām Zayd al-Shahīd]

Salam alaykum

Sadly, history shows that a lot of Ghuluw & Anti-Shari'a and Tahrif al-Qur'an positions were attributed to imam Ja'far al-Sadiq ع

With mut'a, it was attributed to him that a man can contract any number of women, because they are 'hired girls'

Whereas it was narrated from 'Ali b. Musa al-Rida ع that if anyone did contract mut'a, she would be one of his four

The position of Ahl al-Bayt ع is a consensus that it is something to be strongly avoided, like the eating of carrion, which was/is made permissible only in a situation that seems to be leading to a great haram like fornication

Any authentic transmissions from them about the regulations of mut'a do not imply that they considered it proper, but they were explaining the regulations of mut'a which the Prophet had laid down at the time of permission

And they were issuing this to people who practiced mut'a. But the Ahl al-Bayt ع did not practice mut'a and cautioned their followers from soiling their reputations with it

Because the Prophet prohibited it after Khaybar, it became clear that this type of marriage was an exception for exceptional times; and because the verse was revealed giving a wife inheritance, it was argued that this abrogated a contract which excluded inheritance, such as mut'a

 

I advise honourable women not to contract mut'a, but to enter into a proper marriage, and to do so at a reasonable mahr (something that a man can provide with a year or two's savings from a basic national wage). And I advise honourable men to seek marriage with honourable women rather than go cheap or seek temporary relief from Christians or nominal Christians who do not take religion seriously. 

 

Marriage is a very special bond, where attachments are formed and families are united and children are expected and the future Umma is nurtured. Do not build a castle on a ground that is temporary, shaky, and cheap. Not everything that some narrators attribute to al-Sadiq ع is from al-Sadiq. Don't treat women, especially believing women, as hired girls

Marry them properly, with their Wali's permission, with a mahr that shows you care for her - may Allah bless you