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

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:38 am

Quote

"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.

VS

Abu Basir says: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the mut'ah. He said: 'It has been revealed in the Qur'an: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.'" (al-Kafi)

Do you think you know more then the Imam (as)? why you concerned about past tense when you dont even believed this verse has nothing to do with muta in the first place? I should be laughing at you..

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:41 am

Rational Mind wrote:

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,

'Mustadrak-ul-Wasail' (vol 14 page 455) records the chapter of "The disliking of Mutah when one does not need it and when it necessitates repulsiveness and mistreatment of women"

so, the Holy Prophet (sawa), while married, went against His own self (sawa) and did a repulsive act? is this what you are really trying to convince us all of?

we do not go with ahadith that is against common sense as well as ijma within the ummah, there are NO non-usooli scholars who believe and/or teach that any of our Masum (asws) did perform mutah whether married or not! (and many usooli scholars declare the same thing)

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:44 am

Silat_warrior110 wrote:Quote

"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.

VS

Abu Basir says: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the mut'ah. He said: 'It has been revealed in the Qur'an: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.'" (al-Kafi)

Do you think you know more then the Imam (as)? why you concerned about past tense when you dont even believed this verse has nothing to do with muta in the first place? I should be laughing at you..

again, your saying this hadith which speaks of mutah in the present/future tense noun form, has anything to do with, and is not contradictory to the word in the quran which is in a past tense verb form.......this contradicts with the quran itself due to this..... im serious, you cannot say one has anything to do with the other, you do not have the language of the quran behind you in this!

again, if the Imam (atfs) were here to ask, we would do just that, but the fact is he is not, and we have what we were taught in the hadith sciences, to weigh everything against the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the walking quran, in these two we have nothing, we have a bunch of hadith is all saying this is a good thing, which seem to contradict other hadith which heavily teach controlling of nafs!

no I do not think I know more than my Imam (atfs) for sure that, but we have to do what we were told to do when it comes to hadith that are questionable..... and there is much question here

this is why I say ehtiyat in this matter

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:01 am

You rejected that this verse has anything to do with muta then you say it is talking about the past tense. Does the Quran not pass the test of time? If you are sayying this is about past tense, where is the future tense that abroagtes it?

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:10 am

Ya Ali Madad

look, im going to be dead serious since you dont know enough about hadith sciences to debate this anyway....... (im not including rijal to be a science as we (non-usoolis) do not partake in this act, just so you know)

the only thing mutah has truly going for it is going to be the sheer number of hadith that allow it, and the many various chains, making these hadith become similar to a mutawatir narration, even though its not talking about one specific event, you could put the rules of mutawatir upon mutah as well i believe...... meaning we would have to accept that it is quite possible that these were narrated at least some of them from the Aimmah themselves (asws) even though it is still possible that these are all fabrications...... just not as logical....

it would lead us to alialiali's conclusion (an idea that he, being sadaat, was raised to believe... he is not the only syed i know of raised in this belief) and Shiekh Tusi seemed to concur with... that being that mutah was allowed for new converts to the religion and non-sayeds, and haram on sadaat......

So we ask ourselves why would it have been allowed on this group? Well, new converts have an adjustment period and learning things such as controlling nafs ect is a long process, and here is where many men will fall into sin.... so the masumeen (asws) gave these people a way to backslide so to speak without it being a sin on them....... this would be logical....... as we grow in our religion and our spirituality we overcome our nafs little by little, and there comes a day when the necessity for mutah is no longer even a concern, no more thoughts of a sexual nature outside of true marriage ect....

but for sadaat it would always remain haram because they are in fact sadaat, ie: the blood of Allah (so to speak) and this would degrade the Holy Family (asws) because you all are representitives of such and as such should be showing the world how to overcome these desires and rise above them, through our most beautiful religion thats main teaching happens to be learning to rise above self, and not teaching how to have sex with every tom dick and harry (dumb american saying) you may so desire.....

make sense?

this means that for some mutah is haram on them, depending on what level they might be, and should never ever ever be abused or be used as an excuse, but only as a very last resort by those it is not haram upon....

we should remember the hadith of the man who went before Moula Ali (asws) with the sin of masterbation weighing heavily on his mind to the point he confessed to this sin, Moula, rather than punishing him, paid for him to get married (in Nikkah) since it came about that he could not afford marriage and this is why he did this act.... this is something that carries with it a hudud punishment, but no punishment was carried out, all Moula did was to pay for a nikah for this man, and help him set up a house ect....

Moula did not recommend for him to do mutah.......there is a lesson here to be learned....

Moula Waris

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:11 am

Silat_warrior110 wrote:You rejected that this verse has anything to do with muta then you say it is talking about the past tense. Does the Quran not pass the test of time? If you are sayying this is about past tense, where is the future tense that abroagtes it?

duh.... learn lanugages please.... all forms of words come in past present future tenses, verbs adverbs nouns adjetives ect......

this word is written in the past tense particle verb form......

you are trying to change it to be a present/future tense noun.....

this was my point....has nothing to do with the quran itself being for all times.....

thanks

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:23 am

You are going around in circles, do you not believe in the Quran?, the Quran passes the test of time? If you are sayying that it is in the past tense, then you can apply this to all most 3/4 of the Quran. I don't want to go into these verse as such. However If you are sayying this is in the past tense, then answer the simple Question.

WHERE IS THE FUTURE CONTEXT THAT AGROGATES THIS VERSE? CAN YOU BACK THIS WITH THE HADITH OF THE AIMA (AS).

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:34 am

Silat_warrior110 wrote:You are going around in circles, do you not believe in the Quran?, the Quran passes the test of time? If you are sayying that it is in the past tense, then you can apply this to all most 3/4 of the Quran. I don't want to go into these verse as such. However If you are sayying this is in the past tense, then answer the simple Question.

WHERE IS THE FUTURE CONTEXT THAT AGROGATES THIS VERSE? CAN YOU BACK THIS WITH THE HADITH OF THE AIMA (AS).

ok, can you learn english before getting back to me next time?????

just give yourself a few minutes to think about it, take a break and breathe,,,,, come back to it later..... you can delete these two posts that make you look bad later dude..... just breathe,,,,,

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 am

That does not really answer the Question, let me write it out for you again...

Question

1) Is this verse about Muta? Yes or No?

2) If it is in the past tense, can you show me where it has been abroagted according to Quran and Hadith?

by **azadaar110** Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:45 am

MoulaKaram wrote:
Silat_warrior110 wrote:You are going around in circles, do you not believe in the Quran?, the Quran passes the test of time? If you are sayying that it is in the past tense, then you can apply this to all most 3/4 of the Quran. I don't want to go into these verse as such. However If you are sayying this is in the past tense, then answer the simple Question.

WHERE IS THE FUTURE CONTEXT THAT AGROGATES THIS VERSE? CAN YOU BACK THIS WITH THE HADITH OF THE AIMA (AS).

ok, can you learn english before getting back to me next time?????

just give yourself a few minutes to think about it, take a break and breathe,,,,, come back to it later..... you can delete these two posts that make you look bad later dude..... just breathe,,,,,

I would also like to see the answer to brother silats questions, are you able to reply in a comprehensive manner?

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:57 am

MoulaKaram wrote:

"... 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 (due to this being past tense verb form) 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."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??????????????????????????????

so NO, this ayah is not about mutah in the form of marriage! it is concerning and related specifically to mehr,,,,,

please attempt to read my words

by **azadaar110** Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:02 am

Sorry brother MoulaKaram,

MoulaKaram wrote:
MoulaKaram wrote:

"... 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 (due to this being past tense verb form) 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."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??????????????????????????????

so NO, this ayah is not about mutah in the form of marriage! it is concerning and related specifically to mehr,,,,,

please attempt to read my words

This has already been refuted by brother Silat earlier in this thread, let me quote him again...

Silat_warrior110 wrote:Quote

"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.

VS

Abu Basir says: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the mut'ah. He said: 'It has been revealed in the Qur'an: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.'" (al-Kafi)

Do
you think you know more then the Imam (as)? why you concerned about
past tense when you dont even believed this verse has nothing to do
with muta in the first place? I should be laughing at you..

So as per Hadith e Aima (as), this verse IS referring to Mutah unless you have proof of another place in the Quran stating it is allowed?

So are you able to address the brothers earlier questions or not?

Question

1) Is this verse about Muta? Yes or No?

2) If it is in the past tense, can you show me where it has been abroagted according to Quran and Hadith?

If you could answer using proof from Hadith and Qur'an and not simply your opinion or understanding of something as your opinion is not a hujjah upon any of us.

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:27 am

azadaar110 wrote:Sorry brother MoulaKaram,

MoulaKaram wrote:
MoulaKaram wrote:

"... 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 (due to this being past tense verb form) 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."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??????????????????????????????

so NO, this ayah is not about mutah in the form of marriage! it is concerning and related specifically to mehr,,,,,

please attempt to read my words

This has already been refuted by brother Silat earlier in this thread, let me quote him again...

Silat_warrior110 wrote:Quote

"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.

VS

Abu Basir says: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the mut'ah. He said: 'It has been revealed in the Qur'an: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.'" (al-Kafi)

Do
you think you know more then the Imam (as)? why you concerned about
past tense when you dont even believed this verse has nothing to do
with muta in the first place? I should be laughing at you..

So as per Hadith e Aima (as), this verse IS referring to Mutah unless you have proof of another place in the Quran stating it is allowed?

So are you able to address the brothers earlier questions or not?

Question

1) Is this verse about Muta? Yes or No?

2) If it is in the past tense, can you show me where it has been abroagted according to Quran and Hadith?

If you could answer using proof from Hadith and Qur'an and not simply your opinion or understanding of something as your opinion is not a hujjah upon any of us.

I already answered the brother post in this regard, unless the laws of the arabic language change, then this hadith is incorrect! that would make this hadith a possible fabrication brother, how many times do i have to reiterate the same statement? This hadith is in clear contradiction to the Holy Quran itself.... please now re-read my answer to the brother silat warrior the first time i answered him

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:28 am

Ill make it easier for you, here is the answer to the brothers post, very understandable and comprehensive

MoulaKaram wrote:
Silat_warrior110 wrote:Quote

"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.

VS

Abu Basir says: "I asked Abu Ja'far (a.s.) about the mut'ah. He said: 'It has been revealed in the Qur'an: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.'" (al-Kafi)

Do you think you know more then the Imam (as)? why you concerned about past tense when you dont even believed this verse has nothing to do with muta in the first place? I should be laughing at you..

again, your saying this hadith which speaks of mutah in the present/future tense noun form, has anything to do with, and is not contradictory to the word in the quran which is in a past tense verb form.......this contradicts with the quran itself due to this..... im serious, you cannot say one has anything to do with the other, you do not have the language of the quran behind you in this!

again, if the Imam (atfs) were here to ask, we would do just that, but the fact is he is not, and we have what we were taught in the hadith sciences, to weigh everything against the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the walking quran, in these two we have nothing, we have a bunch of hadith is all saying this is a good thing, which seem to contradict other hadith which heavily teach controlling of nafs!

no I do not think I know more than my Imam (atfs) for sure that, but we have to do what we were told to do when it comes to hadith that are questionable..... and there is much question here

this is why I say ehtiyat in this matter

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:30 am

with the language clearly shown in this post here

[quote="MoulaKaram"]

MoulaKaram wrote:

"... 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 (due to this being past tense verb form) 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."

by **azadaar110** Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:36 am

Sorry brother, I specifically asked for proof from sources we both agree upon (Qur'an and Hadith), your personal understanding of something is not proof for anything.

BTW, I'm a sister Smile

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:54 am

azadaar110 wrote:Sorry brother, I specifically asked for proof from sources we both agree upon (Qur'an and Hadith), your personal understanding of something is not proof for anything.

BTW, I'm a sister

im not talking about personal understanding, you wanted proof i show you the quran you want hadith you were already shown conflicting hadith.....

just because you prefer to accept the hadith that are pro mutah is niether here nor there, now we are talking about what is the quran saying, if you note that shakir was a shia who did a translation of the holy quran in the exact same way i did, why if mutah was in the present/future tense noun as you are trying to imply?

these hadith go against the quran, look it up in any and all arabic dictionaries i really could care less..... but they go against the clear clear language of the quran......

you can choose whatever you wish to choose, it is not my problem, I have chosen to side with what the Aimmah (asws) have told us to do, i went to the quran and the sunnah....... since this is found in neither place, (its not in the quran in noun form only verb form and past tense verb at that) and its not a part of the sunnah of the Masumeen (asws) then I believe that ehtiyat should be performed as per the instructions of the Masumeen (asws)

if you want a greater understanding of the quran then I suggest you learn arabic for yourself, and then in a few years revisit this topic for yourself.....

im not telling anyone its either haram or halal, im saying that if you do what the Aimmah asws told us to do then you should heavily be considering ehtiyat....... if you have no care for the truth then do as you please.....

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:57 am

You have really confused yourself, and made religion very complicated. Let me put this in a basic way for you. You have rejected the hadith because it does not suit your belief If you are sayying this verse is not about Muta, then what is this verse about?

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:01 am

Silat_warrior110 wrote:You have really confused yourself, and made religion very complicated. Let me put this in a basic way for you. You have rejected the hadith because it does not suit your belief If you are sayying this verse is not about Muta, then what is this verse about?

I reject mutah because it is against BOTH the HOLY QURAN AND the Sunnah of the Masumeen asws

this leads us to believe all these hadith are possible fabrications.....

has nothing to do with what i wish to believe or not believe.....

you accept these hadith because it suits you, not because it has anything to do with the quran and the sunnah....

Moula Waris

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:04 am

looooooooooooooooooooool what a great reply,

Quote

"has nothing to do with what i wish to believe or not believe....."

with....

Quote

"I reject mutah because it is against BOTH the HOLY QURAN AND the Sunnah of the Masumeen asws"

has it not got to do with what you believe? you seem to believe that this verse is not about Muta, then can you tell us all what is it about?

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:06 am

it has to do with a man being responsible for paying the mahr to his wife even after he has had sexual relations with her......(ie: he is not free from this obligation just because she is his wife in every sense of the word

I have already shown this

by Azadar E Mazloom Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:10 am

MoulaKaram wrote:
azadaar110 wrote:Sorry brother, I specifically asked for proof from sources we both agree upon (Qur'an and Hadith), your personal understanding of something is not proof for anything.

BTW, I'm a sister

im not talking about personal understanding, you wanted proof i show you the quran you want hadith you were already shown conflicting hadith.....

just because you prefer to accept the hadith that are pro mutah is niether here nor there, now we are talking about what is the quran saying, if you note that shakir was a shia who did a translation of the holy quran in the exact same way i did, why if mutah was in the present/future tense noun as you are trying to imply?

these hadith go against the quran, look it up in any and all arabic dictionaries i really could care less..... but they go against the clear clear language of the quran......

you can choose whatever you wish to choose, it is not my problem, I have chosen to side with what the Aimmah (asws) have told us to do, i went to the quran and the sunnah....... since this is found in neither place, (its not in the quran in noun form only verb form and past tense verb at that) and its not a part of the sunnah of the Masumeen (asws) then I believe that ehtiyat should be performed as per the instructions of the Masumeen (asws)

if you want a greater understanding of the quran then I suggest you learn arabic for yourself, and then in a few years revisit this topic for yourself.....

im not telling anyone its either haram or halal, im saying that if you do what the Aimmah asws told us to do then you should heavily be considering ehtiyat....... if you have no care for the truth then do as you please.....

Brother Moula Karam,

If you could please answer without getting emotional, I believe we are all striving to learn. Clearly the sister did not understand your argument, are you able to reply to her in a way that she understands?

I notice that even in your long post in reply to her, you failed to provide any real proof.

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:13 am

Can you give me a hadith now for what you have said to back this verse with referance please...?

The wife becomes entitled to dowry just on recitation of the formula of marriage; it does not depend on sexual relation, nor on the pursuit of the same (a term which may apply even to proposal of marriage, recitation of marriage formula, foreplay and sexual intercourse, etc.). Of course, half of the dowry is payable on recitation of the formula and the balance on coition.

Apart from that, many verses, which were revealed before it, had fully established the obligatoriness of paying dowry, with all its various propositions. Accordingly, there was no reason to repeat the order of its obligatoriness here.

Example:

And give women their dowries as a free gift (4:4). And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything... (4:20-21).

There is no blame on you if you divorce women while yet you have not touched them or appointed for them a dowry, and make provision for them, on the wealthy according to his means and on the straitened in circumstances according to his means, ...And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have appointed for them a dowry, then (pay to them) half of what you have appointed, unless they remit or he remits in whose hand is the marriage-tie; and it is nearer to piety that you should remit;... (2:236-7).

You have proposed that this sentence may be aiming at putting emphasis on the law of dowry. But the above-mentioned verses, and especially the ending clauses of the verses: And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another. .., are much more forceful and stronger than the verse under discussion. Therefore, how can this verse be supposed to put emphasis on those verses?

by Azadar E Mazloom Sun Jun 13, 2010 10:35 am

To add to the brothers comments (without moving off topic), are you able to provide me with your translation of this verse?

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا
مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ۖ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ ۚ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ
مَا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَنْ تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ مُحْصِنِينَ
غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ ۚ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ
أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً ۚ وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُمْ
بِهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا

Thanks...

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:17 pm

Now I know why Mola Raza (as) said:-

قال : وقال الرضا ( عليه السلام ) : المتعة لا تحل إلا لمن عرفها ، وهي حرام على من جهلها .

Mut`a is not halal except for the one who recognizes it, and it is haram upon the one who is ignorant of it.

And just to close the chapter which was intialy If a Syed can do it or not? I shall leave it on this simple hadith which will clear this misconception.

قال : وروى ابن بابويه بإسناده أن عليا ( عليه السلام ) نكح امرأة بالكوفة من بني نهشل متعة .

He said: And Ibn Babuwayh narrated that Imam `Ali عليه السلام married a woman in Kufa from the Banu Nahshal in mut`a.

by Sponsored content