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

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:01 pm

please do not degrade Moula with a hadith no scholars accepts as anything more than a fabrication by the sunnis in an attempt to degrade our moula....

(the children that were supposed to have resulted in this mutah did not exist outside of these couple hadith, therefore the hadith is fabricated....)

you all are too much for real...... and i am out of this, anyone who wishes to can see the truth

Moula Waris

by alialiali Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:20 pm

Everyone's going on about muta being haram and halal, it also seems like the ones in favour of muta are having a struggle in proving it properly for non-syeds alone, it should have been clear as water before they practiced it. It seems as the syeds should re-think again about muta, since non-syeds are struggling to even prove muta for themselves.

Then you dont hesitate to point your flesh and bones at rasolilah (saw) how rational your mind is, using rasolilah (saw) in desperation to prove muta, it isn't really helping you or the ones holding your ideas. Think about what you are saying? your prophet (saw) practiced muta with different women? then you're also believing all masooms (saw) did too or may have done it, as in your case there is no wrong in believing this, thobah brothers and women

If one says to another, your mother before full marrage/s may have practiced muta! im sure its an awful thing to say, why is it taken so lightly when you say rasoolilah (saw) did it??

sunnis zindabad, syed or not syed, they try to control their desires as maula (saw) says.

this topic is going round in circles.....

by **azadaar110** Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:46 pm

MoulaKaram wrote:please do not degrade Moula with a hadith no
scholars accepts as anything more than a fabrication by the sunnis in
an attempt to degrade our moula....

(the children that were
supposed to have resulted in this mutah did not exist outside of these
couple hadith, therefore the hadith is fabricated....)

you all are too much for real...... and i am out of this, anyone who wishes to can see the truth

Moula Waris

Brother MoulaKaram,

Either refute the posts addressed to you or simply do not reply. You
seem to have gone down the typical usooli route of denying ahdith that
go against your personal beliefs/desires.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that sunni's have ahadith in favour of Muta? Just to summarise:

1) You begin by citing hadith claiming muta is haram, they were refuted and shown for their true context.

2) Then you claim the Qur'an is referring to a past tence, the brother
refuted that by stating the Qur'an is not just restricted to past and
is used as an example for all time.

3) Then you claim the verse of the Qur'an refers to dowry and NOT muta,
again that was refuted as why would you need to pay your wife a dowry
each and every time you are intimate with her? It makes no sense!

Then when we provide you more ahadith of the Ma'sumin (as), you reject
them as fabrications because... Well because ''you think'' it degrades
Maula (as)...??? IS MUTAH HALAL OR HARAM (SYED AND NON SYED'S) - Page 4 Icon_neutral

You have yet to provide a response to the posts and questions directed at you but rather then respond with a comprehensive reply using proof from the Qur'an and/or hadith, what do you say?

you all are too much for real...... and i am out of this, anyone who wishes to can see the truth

Are YOU for real? This is a discussion board so please discuss and do not run away in a rant pretending you are right and the whole world is wrong. If you are presented with the proof, believe in it!

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:55 pm

adding to the point, I am still waiting for a reply to my Questions, Inshallah...

by Azadar E Mazloom Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:06 pm

alialiali wrote:Everyone's going on about muta being haram and halal, it also seems like the ones in favour of muta are having a struggle in proving it properly for non-syeds alone, it should have been clear as water before they practiced it. It seems as the syeds should re-think again about muta, since non-syeds are struggling to even prove muta for themselves.

Then you dont hesitate to point your flesh and bones at rasolilah (saw) how rational your mind is, using rasolilah (saw) in desperation to prove muta, it isn't really helping you or the ones holding your ideas. Think about what you are saying? your prophet (saw) practiced muta with different women? then you're also believing all masooms (saw) did too or may have done it, as in your case there is no wrong in believing this, thobah brothers and women

If one says to another, your mother before full marrage/s may have practiced muta! im sure its an awful thing to say, why is it taken so lightly when you say rasoolilah (saw) did it??

sunnis zindabad, syed or not syed, they try to control their desires as maula (saw) says.

this topic is going round in circles.....

Sorry to intervene once again alialiali, however you failed to reply to
our earlier questions. If you could go back, reply to them before
trying to move forward please Smile

Do you have a single hadith stating muta is haram for Syeds? If not then why do you persist in your denial of those that do?

Make no mistake, there is an enormous amount of evidence in favour of
muta and even if you deny one hadith, it is paramount to kuffr, so
please think time and time again before rejecting.

Also, I would like to point out the difference to how you said:

you don't hesitate to point your flesh and bones at Rasoolullah
(saww)

Please watch your mouth brother, we have all been extremely respectful
even though you try mocking us. What we have posted have been Hadith of
our Imams (as) NOT our own views, opinions and desperation like you
have done! If you think the hadith are disrespectful, that is your
problem, not ours!

As for the following comment of yours:

sunnis zindabad, syed or not syed, they try to control their desires as maula (saw) says.

If you are sunni and follow umer, please be open and say so! Please
stop hiding behind the guise of being a believer of Maula (as) and then
misleading them with your devient beliefs...

To be honest, I really don't know what you are, shia, sunni, wahabi,
none Muslim? All I know is, whatever proof we provide seems not to be
enough! Seriously, what do you believe in so we can try providing proof
from them sources for you?

by Silat_warrior110 Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:30 pm

That is a good point brother, can you tell me what sect you people belong to becuase your Aqaid is not of any Shia.

by MoulaKaram Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:14 pm

Silat_warrior110 wrote:That is a good point brother, can you tell me what sect you people belong to becuase your Aqaid is not of any Shia.

if you are what it means to be a shia, and your hadith of the day (which in all forums is something to keep in mind for the day to keep in mind rememberence of Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed asws) is only for the degredation of The Holy Family (asws) then i will never call myself a shia.....

you all do to the Holy Family (asws) what you would not do to your own fathers, it shows how much love is in your hearts, for sure

what I am is someone who follows hadith e aimmah asws to the best of my ability who loves Muhammed wa Aale Muhammed (asws).....

dont know what you want to call that! its defintely something other than the religion of degrading the Holy Family (asws) you all have going for you here....

I believe people like you who degrade the holy Family (asws) call people like me ghaali because it would be better for you to put a knife to our throats than say trash on the Holy Ones (asws) whom we love
Moula Waris

by Rational Mind Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:39 pm

The first point I want to mention is that you claim that M H
Shakirs translation is a shia translation.

Sheikh Mohammed Shakir b. Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Qadir was born in 1282 Hijri/1866
CE in Jirja, a city in Upper Egypt. He studied and graduated from Al Azhar University. He died in 1358 Hijri/1939 CE in Cairo.

You are claiming this person was a shia? If you are going to google something at least make sure you read everything!

It is alleged (not proven) that M H Shakir was m Habib Shakir of the Khoja Shia Family of Bombay.

BUT even so it is alleged the transliteration is plaguarised from the 1917 works of:
Muhammad Ali (1874–1951) Amir (1914–1951) who was a Pakistani writer, Islamic scholar, and leading figure of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

So either the M H Shakir is a sunni of al azhar university who was a sunni scholar or it is a shia khioja who was copied the works of a ahmediy scholar.

How does this make it a shia translation?

Secondly you are harping on about istamta being a verb and in the past tense.
What a SILLY argument. I suggest you read the verse carefully.

You incorrectly identify it as ONLY a verb when it is in actual fact a noun and a verb. To argue otherwise is stupidity.

Do not confuse the act with its name!
To marry is a verb as (to put it extremely simply) it is a doing word. But the word marry is a name/label of the act and it is a noun.

There are many such examples such as:
run, drink, type, fall, sleep, pass, and many others.

So istamta means those who you are in muta with. Ie have temporarily married, thus making the act a verb and its label 'muta' a noun simultaneously without seperating it and using BOTH aspects of it.

But you go on to state that Istamta is used in the past tense.

Can you show me how in classical arabic you have reached this conclusion?

Qad or kana is used to signify a past tense ie fa'ala or qad fa' ala or kana fa'ala.

I will go through each one so even if you do not accept this, others will understand how I have come to this conclusion and how then can ascertain the same!

Fa al means to do,so;

Fa' ala he did.
kana Fa'ala he had done
Qad Fa'ala he has done

But this verse is stating fa ma istamtatum be hi min huna [those whom you have contracted muta with/enjoyed muta with].

Explain to me how you can argue that this is a past tense? It is not specifically past tense at all. Not as a verb or as a noun.

But lets take for an isntance that it isin the past tense, even so the quran and this ayat AFTER explaining the prohibited classes is stating that those that the people at the time have enjoyed muta with are lawful to them.

If muta is haram as you misguidedly claim, then why did not the qurannsay to those poor unfortunate souls to repent for they had done wrong? It has stated implicitly that this form of marriage is allowed.

You have to remember muta was a practice in vogue during the time of the Prophet (saww) in medina. It was called muta and was known as muta, so the quran stating those of you enjoying a muta marriage/ in muta/deriving benefit from muta have done nothing wrong.

There are so many hadeeth on the matter to confirm that Muta was in vogue at the time and this verse refers to MUTA. So unnless you are a sunni or are completely ignorant, I dont see why you object to this explanation of the verse as it has been described through numerous ahadeeth of the Aimma(as) to be refering to muta.

Here below is an extract from Al Mizan as to the construction of the sentence of istamtatum. I hope you are not now going to argue that al mizan is NOT a shia tafseer?

QUR'AN:
Then as to such of them with whom you have mut'ah give them their dowries as appointed;...:Probably, the word, ma (to translated here as 'such') is relative pronoun; the verb,"you have mut'ah" is its antecedent; the pronoun in bihi (with whom) refers to the relative pronoun, and the words, "of them" to the antecedent. Meaning: Then as to such of the women with whom you have mut'ah.

Another possible grammatical explanation: The pronoun, in bihi (with which) refers to cohabitation (which was implied in the clause: and lawful for you is (all) besides that ma' then would denote time and mean 'whenever'; and the words, 'of them', would be connected to the verb, istamta'tum which may literally be translated as, 'you seek to enjoy'. In this case, the translation would be as follows: Then whenever you seek to enjoy (sexually) with any of them, give them their dowries as appointed.

So it is either the present tense (those with whom you are IN muta) or future tense (those with whom you wish TO SEEK muta).

I think this is sufficient to answer your confused, misguided and misleading posts on it being a verb or noun and past, present or future tense.

by Rational Mind Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:07 pm

MoulaKaram wrote:
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?

[color=#000000]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)

I am perturbed at your blatant misrepresentation of the issues and arguments.
Whatever the author/coompiler may have classified the hadeeth under is of no relevance whatsoever!
Look at the matan (contents) of the hadeeth, that is hujja for us, NOT where it has been stated or under what man made heading!

If i compiled a hadeeth book and put a hadeeth under the heading of "the undesirability of debating with idiots' a hadeeth telling us the value of acquiring knowledge and of instructing others' would you seriously sit there and say to people the hadeeth is either fabricated and the Aimma (as) do not want us to learn knowledge and inform others?
Because that is your above argument!
Either you have a lot of time on your hands and want to debate irrelevant and silly points, or you want to detract from the actual issue of muta by putting up baseless and silly arguments!

The hadeeth mentions quite clearly that Muta is a practice of the Prophet(saww) and it is abhorrant to the Imam (as) that men do not do every act the Prophet(saww) has adopted.

i am not going to try to convince you of anything, you are the one questioning and denying the words of the Aimma (as).

So your common ense and ijma is above the words of quran and hadeeth? you misguided fool, you have such brazen arrogance that you substantiate on your inferior 'common sense' and the common agreement of likeminded fallible men? Since when has the opinion of fallible men and your idea of common sense become a hujja on anyone?!

Where is your 'common sense' in four marriages? or charging a levy from dhimmis (non muslims in a muslim land) or in praying five times a day? Your common ense would fail as it is deficient!

The Aimma (as) have given us the rules, and if you can find the rational behind it all well and good, but if you cannot, you cannot deny there hukm (order).

So unless you can show me that this hadeeth clearly contradicts the hadeeth of the Aimma (as) AND the quran, then your argument is about as valid as the one about the moon being made of green cheese!

by Rational Mind Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:20 pm

[quote="MoulaKaram"]

Silat_warrior110 wrote:

"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!

This has been addressed in my above post!

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!

See there you go trying to use that tiny mind of yours again. Why dont you follow your own words and weight it on the quran?

You say there are hadeeth on muta which contradict hadeeth on controlling the nafs. Why do they contradict?

According to your misguided common sense, the hadeeth on permanent marriage would contradict the hadeeth on controlling the nafs, and you would argue people shouldnt marry at all and control the nafs! What a nonsensical and redunnt argument you put forward!

Controlling the nafs is not just about sexual behaviour but also about eating, drinking, sleeping, praying and all other forms of personal and social conduct!
Controlling the nafs means to do things for the right reason, ie marry because you are doing good, not because you want to satisfy your lust for someone; eat not to excess and eat little; pray regularly and do not give in to laziness etc this is all controlling the nafs!

So care to give a valid reason?

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

Thank god you stated something that i can agree with! You do not know more than a lot of people, let alone our Holy Aimma (as)!

Mola (as) have also stated that hadeeth are either acceptable or rejected based on whether they accord or disagree with the quran!

There is no question of questionable hadeeth! It is either in accordance with the quran or it is not as the quran and the Aimma (as) are a clear guidance without any doubt! You can have no knowledge of soemthing or not know whether something that agrees with the quran or not, but that is your lack of knowledge or willful ignorance rather than doubt.

Your whole questionability of these hadeeth has been addressed and the 'doubt' has been revealed as your misunderstanding of the quranic ayat. Once you accept what is clear and evident (ayat 4:24) these hadeeth no longer remain questionable but absolutely apparent, clear and valid.

by Rational Mind Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:36 pm

alialiali wrote:Everyone's going on about muta being haram and halal, it also seems like the ones in favour of muta are having a struggle in proving it properly for non-syeds alone, it should have been clear as water before they practiced it. It seems as the syeds should re-think again about muta, since non-syeds are struggling to even prove muta for themselves.

Then you dont hesitate to point your flesh and bones at rasolilah (saw) how rational your mind is, using rasolilah (saw) in desperation to prove muta, it isn't really helping you or the ones holding your ideas. Think about what you are saying? your prophet (saw) practiced muta with different women? then you're also believing all masooms (saw) did too or may have done it, as in your case there is no wrong in believing this, thobah brothers and women

If one says to another, your mother before full marrage/s may have practiced muta! im sure its an awful thing to say, why is it taken so lightly when you say rasoolilah (saw) did it??

sunnis zindabad, syed or not syed, they try to control their desires as maula (saw) says.

this topic is going round in circles.....

I think you may be reading a thread nobody else can see, or you are on drugs!
The only people misguided and deviant are you and moulakaram because you are interpreting the verse of sura nisa 4:24 in clear and direct opposition of the teaching of the Aimma (as) using your own interpretation, intellect and opinion! This is what leads people to misguidence, kuffar and hellfire!

You people have shown NO evidence for muta being prohibited, for it applying only to reverts or some other unidentified class of people or some specific place and time!

You give nothing but opinions and misguided self coined interpretations and then have the gall to claim we are having a hard time proving it?

What i am having a hard time doing is trying to understand how someone can make such stupid and pathetic assumptions as you two brothers.

Molakaram at some points states its haram and at other places tells us to perform Ehtiyat! Even he cant make up his mind whether its halal or haram and you expect us to follow his doubt? Next you will want us all to believe in santa claus!

Depseration? what a pathetic 'PR' stunt on your part! I stated a hadeeth which is easily accessed and is the word of our Imam (as). If that is depseration to you then may Mola(as) guide you or send you where you belong.

For me, words of the Aimma (as) are the object of devotion not depseration. But i think you have too high an opibnion of your 'common sense'.

You have not answered any questions or refuted any hadeeth and have given your opinions on everything.
Show us words of Mola (as) and i shall entertain you.

To this moment in this discussion, you have not shown evidence that muta is only for non syeds, and even though mola karam tried [very badly] to show verse 4:24 does not refer to muta, he did not succed at all.

So why dont you stop trying to win an argument and start trying to learn from this discussion. If you do not want to then i shall not debate with you as it would be futile and Mola (as) have tolld us not to debate with ignorant fools!

by Rational Mind Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:42 pm

MoulaKaram wrote:
Silat_warrior110 wrote:That is a good point brother, can you tell me what sect you people belong to becuase your Aqaid is not of any Shia.

if you are what it means to be a shia,... then i will never call myself a shia.....

Thank god! Dont ever consider it unless you want to put the words of Mola (as) above your own 'common sense' and intellect.

If you did call yourself shia, you would be perpetrating a fraud on people who did not have sufficient knowledge to be safe from your misguidance and misinformation! You would confuse and mislead many impressionable minds and hearts to a deviant form of islam.

So please follow your own statement.

by Rational Mind Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:06 am

Moula Karam and Silat Warrior your off topic posts have been deleted.

Moula Karam if you have anything to add to the issue being discussed please do bring it forward, otherwise your are spamming and throwing hissy fits, both of which are not allowed on the forum.

So please respond to the posts with on topic content or do not waste time.

by Rational Mind Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:26 am

So i take it from the silence and the previous posts that it has been established without any doubt that muta IS halal and allowed and it is Halal and allowed for syeds AND non syeds.

Whether one choses to practice it is one thing, but whoever chooses to deny it as a valid practice is not from the Aimma (as).

What i can see so far is that the ones so strenuously arguing for the case that muta is haram or haram for syeds such as moula karam and alialiali have not been able to prove a single objection to muta and in desperation are denying hadeeth of Mola (as) and interpreting verses of the quran according to their own understanding and predecided beliefs.

SO Muta is allowed for syeds and non syeds.

by ALI J.J WARIS Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:14 am

Thank you all for contributing.... Very Happy

....

by alialiali Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:50 am

the question needs to be rephrased, "is mutah halal for the masooms (saw) and their (saw) sons/daughters or just for nonsyeds"

rational mind has proven through 1 hadith that all masooms (saw) are to do muta and it is ok for them (saw) to do muta and strongly believes in muta for rasolilah (saw) imams (saw) and their sons/daughters and has proved it through the 1 hadith (Wasa'il, XIV 442 hadith 1).

since masooms (saw) are to do muta, what are syeds to say we can't...

i think you're right there about the siliences lol, guess case is closed lol

by Silat_warrior110 Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:51 pm

Not just one hadith brother, they are several. However my suggestion to you is learn more about the Shia Aqaid before worrying about Muta. Then you will come to know more about what is halal and haram according to the Madhab of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as). Not only the Prophet (saw) did Muta also Mola Ali (as) himself practiced Muta.

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

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

If anyone rejects the concept of Muta, they are not even accepted as a Shia in according to the hadith of Imam Raza (as)...

Abdul-Wahid bin Muhammad bin Abdous al-Attar an-Nisapuri, Allah may please him narrated to us from Ali bin Muhammad bin Qutaiba from al-Fadhl bin Shathan that Ali bin Musa ar-Reza (a) said:

For anyone who declares the oneness of Allah, denies His being anthropomorphized, deems Him far above that whichever does not fit Him, declares that might, power, will, volition, creation, authority, and acts—all are in the possession of Allah, believes that the acts of the servants (the planning for the acts, not their bringing into being) are created, declares that Muhammad (s) is the messenger of Allah and Ali (a) and the Imams who follow him are the arguments of Allah (against the creatures), supports their disciples, antagonizes their enemies, avoids committing the grand sins, believes in rajaa and the two mut’as, and has faith in the Prophet’s Midnight Ascension, the tomb interrogation, the Divine Pool, the right of intercession, the creation of Paradise and Hell, the Path, the Balance, the raising from the death, and the Resurrection, he is surely believer and one of our Shia—the Shia of the Prophet’s household.

This topic reminds me incident that took place between Umair Al-Laithi and Abu Jaffar (as). You can see from peoples post who is following Umair and who is following Abu Jaffar (as) regarding the practice of Muta. Look at this following hadith:-

Zurarah narrated: Abdullah ibn Umair Al-Laithi came to Abu Jafar [as] and he asked him: "What do you say about the Mutah of women?" He answered: "Allah made it halal in His book, and on the tongue of His Prophet [s], so it is halal until the day of Qiyamah." He (Al-Laithi) said: "Those like you say this, but Umar made it haram and forbade it." He said: "He (Al-Laithi) said: "I seek refuge for you with Allah from that, that you deem halal that which Umar made haram." He said: "Then you are with the doctrine of your companion (Umar), and I am with the doctrine of the Messenger of Allah [s], invoke the curse of Allah (upon the one mistaken between us) - the truth is what the Messenger of Allah said and what your companion says is falsehood."

Abdullah ibn Umair then advanced and said: "Does it please you that your women and your daughters and your sisters and the daughters of your uncle do (Muta)?" Abu Jafar [as] turned away from him when he mentioned His [as] women and the daughters of his uncle.

Al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 186
Al-Furu, Volume 2 page 42 Hadith No. 4

The narration fails to prove that Mut'ah is not haram, for there is nothing in it to establish that the Imam (as) turned away his face at the thought of Mut'ah. This is especially obvious since the Imam (as) himself emphasized it was halaal. It is far more probable that the Imam (as) turned away his face on account of the disrespect afforded to him by Ibn Umair. So this is sufficent evidance the prove that Muta is the Sunnah of the Aima (as) and Sayyids do not have a seperate law regarding it. And anyone who rejects the idea of Muta are the enemys of the Shia and following the Deen of Umar (la). End of conversation Smile

by Sponsored content