IS MUTAH HALAL OR HARAM (SYED AND NON SYED'S)

As for a start I have proven muta to have been Mubah. And the hadith that you posted are based on either its context or the hadith are not accepted becuase the author himself who has included these narrations has himself explained in the foot notes as to why they are weak.

Quote

"your replies will help stregthen muta practices and i am happy with your replies, mutah is halal"

Then you go to say ...

Quote

"i believe its fine for all non-syeds to do muta, as it was practiced by non syeds whether prohibitted or not"

Your statement is oxymoronic, it is not a matter of what you and I believe, but what the Aima (as) have taught us. And there is not a special law for a sayed regarding the principals of muta. We both follow the same Quran and Hadith, if this is this case then please show us all the proof that is is not allowed for sayeds?....


Imam al-Sadiq (as) said: “The one who does not believe in our return [Al-Raj’ah] and does not consider our Mutah to be Halal is not from us.” (al-Bihar, al-Majlisi, v53, p92, Hadith #101)

Therfore If somone does not believe in Mutah as been halal, he can not be a sayed as per the above hadith of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as). Be it physical or spirtual, anyone who claims to be a Sayed/Ummti who follows the Ahlulbayt (as) and thinks this pracitce is haram, the Imam (as) has said himself that "he/she is not from us". Muta is Musthab for Sayeds but haram for the decendants of Umar.

Watch the following Video from 2.39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIalXLYxzZQ

Quote

your reason for rasoolillah (saw) imams (saw) all masooms (saw) not doing mutah was because?? they entered into full marrages (your opinion? or maula (saw) reasoning for not doing muta?) therefore they were too late to practice it? or they (saw) were not aware of muta before being fully married?

Once again lets not do Qiyas, firstly at what age did the Aima (as) marry? secondly can you prove that they did not do Muta is this just your assumption? and thirdly If it is not your assumption and your argument is based on whether or not they did it them self, then can you show me a single Hadith where the Aima (as) had read Adhan or Aqamah ? The absurd argument if applied here, would mean that we should deem Iqamah and Adhan Haram since there is no evidence that the Aima (as) ever recited it. And finaly, do you place yourself on the same level as the Aima (as)? If "No", then you will know as well as I do that the Aima (as) are "Pak" they are no need of doing Muta. They are the only people who can practice Celibacy (Even though they married) and we are not of that same level.

Now as this has be explained to you in the most basic manner, what is they way forward from here? as for a start brother alialiali islam has given you 2 choices a) marry or b ) mutah If neither of these choices are taken, then the third options (HARAM) is a act of masturbation. What happens if you dont masturbate? i suggest you to take a read of this article and it might shed light on this issue from people personal experiences. Which choice have you taken?

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Mens-Health/WHAT-HAPPENS-IF-YOU-STOP-MASTURBATING/show/388265

mashallah nice hadiths, im not going to go further as your answers are good, hadiths say mutah is halal which i agreed to before but only disagreed muta being halal for aima (saw) and their (saw) sons/daughters.

But according to what you have shown muta is halal for EVERYONE before a full marrage including the aima (saw) (even though they (saw) don't need to as they (saw) are different and i agree) and their own sons and daughters.


thanks brother

What is mubah mutlaq?

1089) 14 - واما ما رواه أحمد بن محمد عن ابى الحسن عن بعض اصحابنا يرفعه إلى ابي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: لا تتمتع بالمؤمنة فتذلها.

فهذا حديث مقطوع الاسناد شاذ، ويحتمل ان يكون المراد به إذا كانت المرأة من اهل بيت الشرف فانه لايجوز التمتع بهالما يلحق اهلها من العار ويلحقها هي من الذل ويكون ذلك مكروها دون ان يكون محظورا.

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/tahzib-7/a24.html


Salaam Silat Warrior (and others)

you noted that people should not fall into the trap of "nuseris" by believing mutah to be haram or believing that mutah is haram on sadaat and halal on any non-syed, so basically I would like to ask you your opinion on Sheikh Tusi, is he a nuseri? is he not a shia because he believed (as I have shown here) that mutah is haram for syed women? it is his explaination for the existence of these ahadith which state mutah to be haram, therefore, does this take Sheikh Tusi out of the fold them of shia islam since, as you have indicated, only nuseris would hold such beliefs?

If scholars such as Tusi were of such a mind concerning mutah then what makes you think there are not valid reasons for scholars and others to hold such opinions without being 'nuseri' or misguided by them?

whether you like it or not these hadith do exist, and not everyone believes mutah is halal for everyone, and this veiw is upheld by many scholars, its just not as openly discussed. These hadith could be taqiyyah, as also another possible explaination, but as Tusi clearly explains the fact that it could be haram on sadaat as another possibility for these hadith, and there are many sadaat who are raised to believe just this. (I would not classify them as nuseri either)

when we have conflicting hadith what do we do? we gauge them against the Holy Quran and see if they oppose the Quran, and in this case mutah most certianly opposes the language of the Quran. So looking to opnions such as the one Tusi has provided us gives a logical summary point for all to consider. (and not simply discount as being only the veiws of the ignorant or nuseris)

very very very intresting....

this whole fing has turned out to be tbh and the ppl here aswell!

Silat_warrior110 wrote:Salam MoulaKaram thank you for joining in with this topic. Mashallah! I have to say myself that the hadith you have mentioned is of a great find However...

Intialy speaking prior to your post the issue that had been raised on the topic of Muta been halal or haram, and If Sayeds have a seperate rule for this. I replied to each hadith explaining both from a historical prespective and showing the misuse of hadiths. If your intial objection is to any of my replies, please feel free to express your views Inshallah...

Now as for the hadith that has been posted above. As a matter of fact the word Sayyeda has not been mentioned no where, but the word momina has. Therfore if this rulling is general as a momina does not just have to be a syeda then it raises many other issues.

For example some mujthids allow woman to do Muta with a prostituate (I personaly do not agree with it), logicaly speaking, she can not be regarded as a momina, therfore how does she apply to this hadith?.

"Do not enjoy it (sexual intercourse) with a Momina woman"

No where does the Imam (as) say that it is haram to do Muta with a woman who is not a Momina? it does not even say it is haram to do it with a momina but rather undesirable. Sheikh Tusi himself himself does not agree to the authenticty of the hadith, If you look at the commentry is states clearly that the chain is broken and the hadith has also been cut off. Also, he does not mention Sadat in the topic rather he says

"it its makrooh to do muta with a momina that is from a Honorable family"

There is no mention of it being forbidden, no Shia be it Usooli or Akhbari say that Muta is not allowed (haram). This is unanimous, If so please show me one Akhbari or Usooli scholar who has made it haram? And also out of curosity what group do you belong to?

a couple of points I feel the necessity of making at this time;

I am proof positive that being of Noble birth is sadaat according to all who profess this religion.

There are three categories in fiqh, haram, halal, and ehtiyat. Things are either forbidden, or allowed, or not practiced because a clear ruling could not be made. Makrooh is an usooli ideal.

Do NOT seems to imply a distinct haram in my book, not so sure about yours, but you are correct the hadith itself simply states it to be haram to do mutah with any momina and Sheikh Tusi interjected his opinion that it would apply to all women of Noble Birth, (ie: sadaat) as his explaination for the above hadith and all ahadith that call mutah haram.

As far as rijal, again, this is an usooli ideal and not one taught by Allah and The Holy Family (asws) rijal in and of itself goes against the clear teachings of the Holy Quran, so a broken chain of narrators has no purpose in our conversation, unless of course you care to find me the isnad for the Holy Quran itself, then and only then will we compare and discuss the isnad for that hadith.

I can create for you many ahadith, all 'sahih' with impeccable chains of transmission, if I can do it then do you not suppose the thought has occured to others in the past? The best ahadith we have as far as sanad is concerned all echo perfectly sunni and wahabbi teachings, why do you suppose that is? Logic would dictate that would have been on purpose, for exceedingly good reasons albeit unnecessary to expand upon at this time.

What we have in the case of mutah, is many ahadith that clearly contradict the language of the Holy Quran, as well as common sense since men are allowed 4 wives as well as slave girls, as well as contradicting the sunnah itself, yet as in the case of mutah, all these hadith are sahih in isnad, but goes against everything else. (refer to the above 2 paragraphs on rijal on more time) I agree that nass is clearly in favor of mutah, and many scholars very willing to throw out all the hadith that speak against mutah, but are we supposed to follow nass when it seems all we have? There is too much that brings enough doubt on the issue that I feel ehtiyat should be practiced, most especially for sadaat, but this is my humble opinion only. It seems the only way to reconcile all of this, I am of the opinion of Tusi on this, but feel in favor of ehtiyat for all momineen and momineena.

as to 'what' I am I will leave you to decide that for yourself, since the truth rarely ever matters when compared to the opinions of others.

alialiali wrote:
i believe persoanally the reason why it was stopped by umer and his beautiful followers is because he, believed he was at the same rank
as maula (saw) or higher, in other words it was another attempt to bring down maulas (saw) and rasools (saw) status by doing this,
he made muta haram on non-syeds.It's obviously a fatwa by umar, why was it there? you think umar was against pleasure? its obvious
he's playing around trying to degrade maula (saw). for making muta haram on himself and ordinary people hes attempted to make his status higher, i'm surprised he didnt make zakat haram on himself and the people too as this would make his status higher.

I do personally believe mutah is haram only for syeds, the rest can mix and match in muta, its fine.... but theres alot to think about here. syeds stay away from desires and hold strong your nafs, non-syeds muta all the way but keep your eyes of syed women in both muta and full marrages.

again if i have offended anyone, please try not to complain lol, i apologise before hand, im a seeker
thank you

MashaAllah, a very nice post brother, it is one in which i concur.

Moula Waris

Ya Ali Madad.

Interesting posts so far.
On the one hand we have the quranic ayat 4:24 allowing muta as a form of marriage.
We have hadeeth declaring mutah as a good act and something we should do.

But then as has been posted there are hadeeth stating muta should not be practiced if you are married.

We also have some either taqiyya hadeeth or fabricated hadeeth which state muta is not allowed. I state taqiya or fabricated as the hadeeth apparently contradict the verse of the quran.

We also have a partial alleged hadeeth which states muta should not be done with a momina.

This is the one that doesnt make sense. Is muta not for momins and mominas? That is what the ayat states and the other hadeeth state this
If we take the hadeeth narrated from Asma Binte Abi Bakr the daughter of abu bakr (la) who was herself a lover of the Aimma (as), she herself has stated that muta was practiced by her and the other followers of the aimma (as).

This then contradicts the partial hadeeth given and adds further doubt as to the veracity of the narration prohibitng muta for mominas.

The only rational conclusion can be that muta is not prohibited for momins, mominas or syeds.

As for opinions, everyone has one, but it does not make something halal or haram, only Allah (swt) has that power as espoused by the Prophet (saww) and protected by the Aimma (as).

very well explained by brother here...thnks....
this the only reason i bought up the topic...

"take the hadeeth narrated from Asma Binte Abi Bakr the daughter of abu bakr (la) who was herself a lover of the Aimma (as), she herself has stated that muta was practiced by her and the other followers of the aimma (as)"

interesting to note you are able to find hadeths about nonsyeds, new muslims, from the line of (la) that they practice mutah, come on, even sunnis can prove this with lovly umar that muta was practiced by non syeds, its not a hard job proving what your trying to prove, umar wasn't just agaist muta. Hindus,buddhists can even prove it being halal for nonsyed by looking in boring history. its not hard to prove that mutah is halal on non syeds.

For umar (la) to say its haram on non syeds, sends alarm bells to tell you its not haram on non syeds.

but on the other side you are unable to find even one hadith from maula (saw)sons/daughters, from imam Ali (saw) to imam zanul abideen (saw) to imam naqi (saw) or masooms (saw) that they (saw) practiced it or their (saw) children?
you placed a hadith in your fight to say muta is halal by non-syed, it will only be fair now to produce one to show that it was practiced by any syeds? or are you going to say taqyah on syeds and no taqyah on non syeds.

you place muta in the same level as azaan and akama (you compared the the 2 as a fair test, think about what you compared azaan can be done by maula (saw) but can muta be done? don't compare the 2, compare muta with somthing else).

muta is on the same level just like sin for maula (saw) muta should not be compared to salah or azaan, (maula says i am salaat (saw))

Silat_warrior110 wrote:
Now as this has be explained to you in the most basic manner, what is they way forward from here? as for a start brother alialiali islam has given you 2 choices a) marry or b ) mutah If neither of these choices are taken, then the third options (HARAM) is a act of masturbation. What happens if you dont masturbate? i suggest you to take a read of this article and it might shed light on this issue from people personal experiences. Which choice have you taken?

[url=http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Mens-Health/WHAT-HAPPENS-IF-YOU-STOP-MASTURBATING/show/388265

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Mens-Health/WHAT-HAPPENS-IF-YOU-STOP-MASTURBATING/show/388265[/quote[/url]]

your third option is masterbation, my third option would be as follows:

Beharul-Alanwaar(vol.14 pg. 327 rewayah 50:21)and seek protection from women desire by fasting (maula saw)

wow, there is an option for one whos not in a full marrage contract, why dont you promote a site about controlling desires rather then satisfying them? don't go on to medhelp.org posting our maula (saw) said this in our hadith for a cure, they will not only laugh at you, but make a mockery out of the idea. If maula is telling you to control you're desires by fasting, what could this mean? even better is it only for the sunnis? or even better syeds?

And remember the muta you are speaking about includes women too, not just men, as you know women dont have parts which men have lol. medhelp.org may have a solution for women. come on brother lol

haram acts can still be done while married or not brother, just because your married doesn't mean you won't do the 3rd option, we are taught to control ourselves the thoughts, the eyes, the ears.

i mean if sunnis can do this, why cant shias? but my argument isn't muta is haram, my argument is mutah isn't for imams (saw) and sadaat.

Thank you for your questions brother alialiali, I may have to intercede on brother Silats behalf for a while until he overcomes his technical difficulties but for now, coming back to your questions...

interesting to note you are able to find hadeths about nonsyeds, new muslims, from the line of (la) that they practice mutah, come on, even sunnis can prove this with lovly umar that muta was practiced by non syeds, its not a hard job proving what your trying to prove, umar wasn't just agaist muta. Hindus,buddhists can even prove it being halal for nonsyed by looking in boring history. its not hard to prove that mutah is halal on non syeds.

You stated that in reference to the hadith posted by brother Silat regarding Asma Binte Abi Bakr... Just out of curiosity, would you say the same about her brother Muhammad bin Abu Bakr? He was also 'new Muslim' and from the same 'line' so if you could tell me how you justify your above comments? In another thread (females performing tatbir) we used a reference supporting Azadari via the wife of yazid (la), would you dismiss that too due to her association with an (la)?

but on the other side you are unable to find even one hadith from maula (saw)sons/daughters, from imam Ali (saw) to imam zanul abideen (saw) to imam naqi (saw) or masooms (saw) that they (saw) practiced it or their (saw) children? You placed a hadith in your fight to say muta is halal by non-syed, it will only be fair now to produce one to show that it was practiced by any syeds? or are you going to say taqyah on syeds and no taqyah on non syeds.

The hadith our respected member MoulaKaram posted has been refuted by brother RationalMind and you may have missed brother Silats earlier post where he also refuted your question regarding Sadaath and mutah but let me post his comments here again!

Ja'far Al-Sadiq says in a narration by Abdallah bin Sinan: "I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about Mutah. He said: "Don't defile yourself with it"
Bihaar Al-Anwar, Volume 100, page 318
The statement of Imam Jafar Sadiq [as] was in referred to the personal situation of Abdullah bin Sinan since he was a married man and his sole objective behind Mutah was to derive sexual pleasure, thus Imam Jafar [as] just advised him not to do it since it was 'unnecessary' for him. Abdullah bin Sinan is has seen the periods of two Imams namely Imam Baqir [as] and Imam Jafar Sadiq [as]. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq [as] became Imam after his father and started teaching when He was 31 years old. Abdullah bin Sinan supposed to be in the same age of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq [as] because he probably died before Imam Sadiq [as] or few months after Imam Sadiq [as]. According to this tradition:

Umar bin Yazid narrated said: 'I heard Abu Abdullah [as] mentioning Abdullah bin Sinan and said: 'He is getting more benefits as he is getting older.''

Rijal Kishi, Volume 2 page 710
Min la Yhdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 431

Which means Abdullah bin Sinan was an elderly man during Imam Jafar al-Sadiq's time and most probably he was older than Imam Jafar al-Sadiq [as]. Therefore, it he cannot be single by that age because the Shias, in fact all of the people of that time used to get married in young age and during Imam Jafar's [as] time of Imamate, Abdullah bin Sinan's age cannot be less than 30s. thus Imam Jafar [as] just advised him not to do it since it was 'unnecessary' for him. This is similar to the case of Ibn Yaqtin, a married man who asked Imam Raza [as] about Mutah, to which the Imam [as] replied: "What you have to do with this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for you." (Wasa'il, Volume 21, page 22).

As stated by Imam Raza [as], Mutah is 'unnecessary' when one's wife is already present otherwise it may cause problems pertaining to the mistreatment of women. Imam Raza [as] in another hadith has elaborated on the matter as follows:

Imam Abu Hasan [as]: "It is Halal, Mubah Mutlaq, for he whom Allah has not made this unnecessary through marriage. So seek chastity through Mutah. If Allah has made this unnecessary for you, then it is permissible for you only when you do not have access to your wife."

al-kafi, Volume 5 page 453, Hadith 2
Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26421

'Mustadrak-ul-Wasail' (vol 14 page 455) records the tradition of Abdullah bin Sinan under the chapter of "The disliking of Mutah when one does not need it and when it necessitates repulsiveness and mistreatment of women" this concurs with logic and Quranic injunctions. If you Quoting from a book do you now read the chapter it is headed under?

Just to put this back into context for you, the Holy Prophets [as] and Imams [as] did not approve (as per the above hadith) of people performing mutah who already had permanent wives.

Unless you can provide even one hadith from Maula (as)s sons/daughters, from imam Ali (as) to Imam Zainul Abideen (as) to Imam Naqi (as)s or Masooms (as)s that they (as) did not have permanent spouses, your objections holds no grounds.

brothers, you have shown in hadiths that married men were ordered by imams (saw) not to do muta because of being married, this is the same reason you give to why masooms (saw) didn't do muta, because they were in full marrage (same level treatment as the non masooms). if your saying muta is ok for masooms (saw) before a full marrage, then what stance does the sons and daughters (sadaat) have in fighting against muta not being for them lol. so the truth is concluding you believe muta is not only for syeds and non syeds but for masooms (saw) too.

muta is halal, no doubt lol,

momina can be anyone only maula (saw) knows and choses your right.

but there's nothing satisfactory in showing it was even desireable for sadaat, as it was never practiced by masooms (saw) or thier sons and daughters.

i think you have shown all proofs, hadiths and all they are showing is muta is halal which i agree, all the hadiths focus on muta practiced by nonsyed beings and was not desireable for married men and all examples again were,,, nonsyeds.

brother Azadar E Mazloom

"You stated that in reference to the hadith posted by brother Silat regarding Asma Binte Abi Bakr... Just out of curiosity, would you say the same about her brother Muhammad bin Abu Bakr? He was also 'new Muslim' and from the same 'line' so if you could tell me how you justify your above comments? In another thread (females performing tatbir) we used a reference supporting Azadari via the wife of yazid (la), would you dismiss that too due to her association with an (la)?"

i simply stated that this hadith was from a non-syed and about nonsyeds doing mutah just like the rest of the hadiths presented all are about nonsyeds doing muta, not one from a syed. i didn't reject it, was further prooving that its again from a non-syed.

anyways, i have no knowledge lol but i put up alittle fight lol. wish i was a syed lol the amount of sticking up i do for em lol i should be granted syedness lol.

thanks again brothers, good answers.

Thank you once again for your questions, Inshallah I will further address your queries...

brothers,
you have shown in hadiths that married men were ordered by imams (saw)
not to do muta because of being married,
this is the same reason you give to why masooms (saw) didn't do muta, because they were in full marriage (same level treatment as the non masooms). if your saying muta is ok for masooms (saw) before a full marriage, then what stance does the sons and daughters (sadaat) have in fighting against muta not being for them lol.

I am afraid I do not understand your argument. You seem to raise an objection to something being undesirable for both Ma'sumin (as) and None Ma'sumin at the same time. Or in your words ''Same level treatment''.What is the problem with this?


If something is undesirable for a normal person, would you some how argue it's desirable (mazallah) for a Ma'sumin (as)? How did you arrive at such a conclusion?
You seem unable to distinguish between something being haram and undesirable. The question I asked you in my above post remains unanswered so if you can please address that in your next possible reply.

so the truth is concluding you believe muta is not only for syeds and non syeds but for masooms (saw) too. muta is halal, no doubt lol,

Absolutely brother, unless you have a hadith or verse from the Qur'an that states otherwise?

but there's nothing satisfactory in showing it was even desirable fo rsadaat, as it was never practiced by masooms (saw) or thier sons and daughters.

Again ,back to the same point, I gave you reasons as to why this was and if
you are able to provide me proof stating any our Aima (as)s families were unmarried AND EVEN THEN didn't do mutah (due to it being undesirable) I will stand corrected, We are not here to go against even a single teaching of our Aima (as) but at the same time we are not here to make up our own religion. Unless you can provide me with proof, I can not and will not take your word for it no matter how many times you add ''LOL'' in your post.

i think you have shown all proofs, hadiths and all they are showing is muta is halal which i agree, all the hadiths focus on muta practiced by nonsyed beings and was not desirable for married men and all examples again were,,, nonsyeds



i simply stated that this hadith was from a non-syed and about nonsyeds doing mutah just like the rest of the hadiths presented all are about nonsyeds doing muta, not one from a syed. i didn't reject it, was further prooving that its again from a non-syed..

So are you able to provide me with examples from Sadaath so I could stand corrected?

i have no knowledge lol but i put up alittle fight

The only thing you have done brother, is try to gain an insight. Aslong as one follows the teachings of the Qur'an, Aima Ma'sumin (as) and NOT one's own desires Inshallah that is what will bring us closer to our Aima Ma'sumin (as)... A little fight can go a long way if done for the right reasons.

alialiali wrote:"take the hadeeth narrated from Asma Binte Abi Bakr the daughter of abu bakr (la) who was herself a lover of the Aimma (as), she herself has stated that muta was practiced by her and the other followers of the aimma (as)"

interesting to note you are able to find hadeths about nonsyeds, new muslims, from the line of (la) that they practice mutah, come on, even sunnis can prove this with lovly umar that muta was practiced by non syeds, its not a hard job proving what your trying to prove, umar wasn't just agaist muta. Hindus,buddhists can even prove it being halal for nonsyed by looking in boring history. its not hard to prove that mutah is halal on non syeds.

For umar (la) to say its haram on non syeds, sends alarm bells to tell you its not haram on non syeds.

but on the other side you are unable to find even one hadith from maula (saw)sons/daughters, from imam Ali (saw) to imam zanul abideen (saw) to imam naqi (saw) or masooms (saw) that they (saw) practiced it or their (saw) children?
you placed a hadith in your fight to say muta is halal by non-syed, it will only be fair now to produce one to show that it was practiced by any syeds? or are you going to say taqyah on syeds and no taqyah on non syeds.

5:87, "...Make not unlawful the good things Allah hath
made lawful for you."

Imam Ja'far (as) said: 'It is reprehensible in my eyes that a man should die
while there yet remains a practice of the Messenger (saww) of God that he has
not adopted.' He was asked: 'And did the Messenger of God (saww) practice mut'a?'
He replied: 'Yes.' Then he recited the Qur'anic verse: ' And when
the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter' up to the
words 'and virgins too.' (66:3-5
(Wasa'il, XIV 442 hadith 1)

I have provided you a hadeeth from Wasail us Shia showing that Muta Was practiced by the Prophet of islam (saww).

Unless you can show that this is not in fact true, your argument now falls away....and i doubt anyone would be silly enough to argue that the Prophet(saww) was not a syed (nauzobillah).

But further i would like to post some further ahadeeth which give a general permissability for muta:

Imam as-Sadiq (as) was asked about Mut'ah, to which he said:

"It's halaal, but do not marry anybody except the chaste, of whom
Allah the Glorified has said: 'Those who protect their sexual parts.'"

In another hadeeth the Imam (as) quotes the ayat:

"The fornicator does not marry except the fornicatress or the
polytheist, and the fornicatress does not marry except the fornicator or
the polytheist, whereas this is forbidden upon the believers."

Sheikh As-Saduq also write:

"He who does Mut'ah with a fornicator is also a fornicator," As
is written in the book Al-Hada'iq.

In Wasa'il Ash-Shi'a, volume 3, page 74 of the 1324 Hijri edition, that
Ali ibn Yaqteen asked Imam Rida (as), grandson of Imam as-Sadiq (as),
about Mut'ah. The Imam (as) said:

"What do you have of this, when Allah has made this unnecessary for
you."

Someone else asked him, and he said:

"It is completely permissible for he whom Allah has not made this
unnecessary by marriage. So seek chastity through Mut'ah. If Allah has
made this unnecessary for you, then it is permissible to you if your
wife is absent."

Can any of you show me the full hadeeth where muta for syeds (and not mominas) has been prohibited?

Ya Ali Madad

sorry I was out of town, I am home once again, (had to go and visit family) and will now answer your lovely posts....



it will be fun! (to prove your own words wrong)


give me a day or so please...


Moula Waris

Rational Mind wrote:Ya Ali Madad.

Interesting posts so far.
On the one hand we have the quranic ayat 4:24 allowing muta as a form of marriage.

well, that is dependant upon the level of arabic you speak one would assume, as not even shakir dared to mistranslate the arabic (and he was a shia) to suit those who wish to say that this ayah has anything to do with mutah 'marriage'

The basis of this argument rests on the fact that the supporters of all these hadith use the fact that istamta'a is derived from the same root as the word muta, "m-t-a". However, anyone with any basic understanding of language would realize that the etymology of various words coming from the same root does not denote that the words mean the same thing. The actual meaning of the verb form according to the Arabic dictionaries, including Al-Mawrid, is this:

"to enjoy; to savor; relish; get pleasure from; to take pleasure or satisfaction or delight in; to have for one's use or benefit; have the
use or benefit of".

the word is a verb form so it cannot be translated as:


"You have been allowed to do MUTA."


Thus, it is well established that the word is not used in the sense of muta 'marriage', but:

"... other women are lawful for you, provided you seek them with your wealth (i.e., dowry), .... So for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them give them their dowry, as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry) after fulfilling the duty."


The verse is directed to the issue of dowry and not muta. What is being stated is that even if a man has had sexual relations with his wife for a long time, and has not payed the mehr, than the husbands still must consider it a binding obligation on them to pay it irrespective of the amount of times they have had intercourse with their wives. Thus the verse is talking about mehr and not temporary marriage. (and yes we all know this to this day happens, recently a case went before a judge in iran where the women sued for ALL of her mahr after they were married some 20 odd years that he had never paid to her)


The final statement is regarding the issue of whether the woman desires to forgo the mehr, and that is stated in the Quran in another verse:


Give the women their dowry as a gift; but if they choose to make over
to you a part of it, you may regard it as lawfully yours. (4: 4)


If one wants to find support from muta, he will not find it in the Quran. Further, the Quran has given harsh pronouncements to issues relating to divorce and has stipulated a 3 'talaq' pronouncement separated by a period of months. This is primarily so that man would not be hasty in his decision and may rectify the marriage relationship. Marriage is viewed very highly in Islam and is the
foundation of the social set-up. To assume that the Quran has allowed muta is in direct violation of its spirit.


as we all know, any ahadith that are in clear contradiction to the Holy Quran are not allowed to be used in fiqh, ie: we are to throw them against the wall (meaning not to use or follow them) so how can we accept any ahadith that tells us that this verse has anything to do with mutah marriage (which would lead us to the necessity for the word mutah to have been used in the present/future tense noun form rather than in a past tense verb form, which clearly it was not!) therefore, none of those hadith can be used in our fiqh.



Moula Waris

and im off to bed now.... see you all tommorow inshaAllah

looooooooool


hahahahahaha

you kill me, you have just translated a past tense verb into a present tense noun because it SUITS your aqeeda!!!!!!! (by the way not even shakir who was shia dared to do tahrif of the holy quran in this manner)

its tahrif (in translation) its as simple as that! I have already proven it....

lets move on to common sense and logic now, as your little fantasy world doesnt fly

we really should rise above the tactics of the wahabbis and salafis.... that is too low, and punishable by eternal death by the way..... keep that in mind.....

Moula Waris