No announcement yet.

Mut'a temporary marriage is the solution to existing Muslim population?

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Mut'a temporary marriage is the solution to existing Muslim population?

    Mut'a is temporary , short term contract merriage. It existance can be accounted for among other reason, Pleasures.

    Althought Most Suni Muslim dont beleive in its practive yet Most Shiha practice this type of merriage. Nevertheless the Shia's from Pakistan mostly dont know this fact and dont practice it.

    Does Mut'a resembles Gf/bf relationship
    in WesternWorld? THe biggers differnce is that here in Muta the contract(merriage)expire. (IT has expiration date) and there is no need to divorce. Again this is also biggest differnce between normal Islamic merriage.

    So basically Muta is short term two people
    (no Homo) contract which permits them to stay as husband and wife. Comparing to Western gf/bf Muta seems little more yet its
    volitoile nature is the same as Western Gf/bf.

    Usually (excluding one nite stand) gf/bf relationship exist for as long as two are ok with relationship but there is no expiration date.

    In my prescpetive Muta has volotile nature which can be abuse easily. I personlly have come acroos someone who in the name of Muta
    practice such. So it should not be practiced. Or do you think it will solve the problems of current muslim generation?

    What to you have to say ? I dont think Muta will stop the current generation problem.
    STop watching/reading/listening to stupid English, Pakistan and Indian movies ..etc

    I would rather have gf relationship then Muta . It least my heart will now i am indulgeing into activities which i shoulnd but I will not reflect or abuse in name of Islam. At least I know I am bad week muslim
    who cant control.

    NO MUTA !!!!

    NO MUTA !!!!

    NO MUTA !!!!

    NO MUTA !!!!

    Muta Marriages = adultury .

    This act has been banned by our Prophet pbuh in his life itself. Maybe it was practiced but later on it was banned forever and even the meat of donkeys was banned from eating.


      Banned it was by the Prophet and by Allah in the Quran as well.

      Adultery it is!

      ~Survival of the smartest~


        Muta Marriages = adultury .
        This act has been banned by our Prophet pbuh in his life itself. Maybe it was practiced but later on it was banned forever and even the meat of donkeys was banned from eating.

        " do you have some solid proof for this????????? or you are saying this just
        when and where can you show me proof from quran or just you are saying so????????


          ya talking to me ?

          if so look up a thread by me called "final post on mutah" or something, and you'll get proof from the Quran as well

          ~Survival of the smartest~


            Originally posted by SalmanKhana:
            Muta Marriages = adultury .
            This act has been banned by our Prophet pbuh in his life itself. Maybe it was practiced but later on it was banned forever and even the meat of donkeys was banned from eating.
            Prove it!
            Hazrat Umr ( or Usman) when he was banning Mutaa himself said that
            "It was allowed in the time of the Prophet but I am banning it"

            No Mutaa = Innovation.

            Sure... I know Mutaa can be abused and so can and IS Jihad.
            You people don't even know what Jihad or Mutaa is. You people go around calling from Jihad from the pulpit of mosques without any knowledge of it. Go read the Qur'an. Expand your mind. Islam is not a draconian religion that you guys make it look like. Islam is something that should come naturally to us. Islam should be in our Fitrah!

            So don't try to defend the innovation by Umr (or Usman) by these baseless arguments.

            I noticed that most of our Wahabi population here likes to pick on the Shias and their faith... Fine by me. That is what keeps them intellectually strong. Read this book. "Peshawar Nights".
            It is a ten day debate between a Shia scholar and several Wahabi scholars. Enlighten yourself and then talk about Shia beliefs. Like I said... In my personal opinion Shia's should be called "Ahl-e-Sunnah". Ah well what can you do... That's life.!

            Shah-e-Mardan Sher-e-Yazdan,
            Lafatah illa ALI,
            La Saif ila Zulfiqar

            [This message has been edited by Lashkar-e-Abbas (edited May 12, 2001).]


              muta was forbidden under the time of the Prophet (PBUH) himself. Numerous narrations in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Dawood proves this. Not one, not two, but about ten-twenty hadithes proves it was made illegal by the prophet himself. Why you shias selectively chose not to beleive none of these numerous hadithes remains a mystery to me, while you frequently use hadithes from these collections to prove other points.

              And tell me, would you have let your sister do mutah? your daughter ? let your daughter do mutah with 40 guyz in a year and tell you "dad chill, this is my religion, its not even a sin" ?? do mutah for 3 days before moving onto next guy ? phuleezz.. so hypocratic of you! you think Islam promotes this type of prostition/adultery ??

              I have in a previous post quite clearly told how Quran itself in a quite non-ambivalent way, forbids mutah. Read it!

              End of discussion.

              ~Survival of the smartest~


                Lashkar-e-Abbas: Would you let your own sister perform Muta?


                  Originally posted by CoolDude:
                  Lashkar-e-Abbas: Would you let your own sister perform Muta?
                  If it is allowed... why not?

                  You are allowed to do everything that you are allowed to do in a marriage. So if marriage is ok, then why not Mut'aa.

                  When the Prophet himself allowed it, then who are you and me to deny what he said. I don't know too much about the Hadiths.(I'll try to get the exact hadith). But one thing is for sure. Those Ulemas sitting in Qum(Iran), spending 20 years of their lives searching through religious material are not idiots who just thought it would be nice to have Mut'aa and announced it so. They do have concrete proof for it. Shia'ism is a school of thought just like that 4 other schools. People spend extensive time in researching material and analyzing the character of hadiths before they say anything. So you and I are in no position to debate that. That is the only reason I referred to the book "Peshawar Nights" because it is a debate between Wahabi Ulemas and Shia Ulemas.
                  I am pretty sure they cover the topic of Mut'aa in it.

                  Shah-e-Mardan Sher-e-Yazdan,
                  Lafatah illa ALI,
                  La Saif ila Zulfiqar



                    MUT'A MARRIAGE AND HAJJ NISA
                    WERE LAWFUL UP TO ABU BAKR'S
                    TIME BUT MADE UNLAWFUL BY UMAR

                    Sheikh: Kindly cite one example of such a change.

                    Well-Wisher: There are many examples; two should suffice to make my point. I will discuss mut'a (temporary marriage) and hajj nisa. Both sects agree that these two practices were common during the time of the Prophet. Moreover, they were practiced during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during part of Umar's caliphate. But Caliph Umar brought about a complete reversal of the Qur'anic order. He said, "Two mut'as were in effect during the time of the Holy Prophet. I now decree both of them unlawful and will punish those who engage in this practice."

                    What was made lawful by Allah was suddenly abrogated. Umar's decree was so widely promulgated and so blindly followed that the original law soon fell into oblivion. Even today many of our Sunni brothers regard mut'a as an innovation of the Shia.

                    If Umar's whim could overturn the clear ordinance of Allah and the historical fact that mut'a was practiced, can you doubt that Abu Talib's well known belief could also be denied?

                    Sheikh: Are you saying that millions of Muslims have violated the injunctions of the Qur'an and the sunna of the Prophet? Remember, the whole world calls us Sunnis, i.e., followers of the sunna. The Shia are called Rafizis, i.e., those who stray from the sunna of the Prophet.

                    SUNNIS ARE REALLY RAFIZIS
                    AND SHIA ARE SUNNIS

                    Well-Wisher: In reality the Shias are Sunnis, that is, they follow the Holy Qur'an and the sunna of the Holy Prophet. You people are Rafizis because you violate the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and the commands of the Prophet.

                    Sheikh: This is strange indeed! You have transformed millions of pure Muslims into Rafizis! Can you advance any argument to support this?

                    Well-Wisher: I have already told you during previous nights that the Holy Prophet instructed us that after him we should follow the Holy Qur'an and his progeny. But you people deliberately abandoned the progeny of the Prophet and followed others. You rejected the practices of the Holy Prophet. You left those people by order of your two sheikhs and then call the real followers of the sunna of the Holy Prophet Rafizis.

                    Among such orders there is another explicit injunction in the Holy Qur'an which says, "And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Apostle and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the way fairer." (8:41) The Holy Prophet observed this order and gave khums (1/5) of the wealth acquired from the enemy to his relatives and kinsmen. But you people opposed this practice.

                    The practice of mut'a is another case in point. It was in accordance with Allah's command. It was sanctioned by the Prophet and his companions. The practice continued during Abu Bakr's caliphate and also during a part of Umar's caliphate. But at the command of Umar you people have made unlawful what Allah made lawful. Moreover, you have rejected the sunna of the Holy Prophet. And yet you call yourselves Sunnis and call us Rafizis.

                    Caliph Umar himself did not advance any reason for his revoking the divine order. The Sunni ulema have tried in vain to prove that Caliph Umar's decision was just.


                    Sheikh: Can you prove the lawfulness of mut'a? Can you prove that Caliph Umar violated the Qur'anic injunction and the sunna of the Holy Prophet?

                    Well-Wisher: The strongest proof is furnished by the Holy Qur'an. In the sura of Nisa (The Women) Allah says: "...then as to those by whom you benefited (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." (4:24)

                    Obviously the Holy Qur'an's command is obligatory forever unless it is abrogated by the Qur'an, itself. Since it has not been abrogated, this command holds good forever.

                    Sheikh: How is this verse not related to permanent wedlock? It is this same verse that gives instruction about paying back dowry.

                    Well-Wisher: You have confused the main point. Your own prominent ulema, like Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir, part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.

                    Apart from the explicit interpretation of your ulema and commentators, you are also aware that throughout the entire sura of Nisa, several kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk-e-Yamin (servants). For permanent marriage the Holy Qur'an says in the sura of Nisa: "Then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then only one or what your right hands possess." (4:3)

                    About Mulk-e-yamin (servants), Allah says: "And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly." (4:25)

                    The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: " to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage. It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.

                    Second, not only Shias but all Muslims agree that mut'a was practiced during the early days of Islam. The distinguished companions practiced it in the time of the Holy Prophet. If this verse refers to permanent wedlock then which is the verse for mut'a? Evidently this is the verse regarding mut'a, which your own commentators have accepted. There is no verse in the Holy Qur'an which abrogates this command.


                    It is reported in Sahih of Bukhari and the Musnad of Imam Ibn Hanbal from Abu Raja on the authority of Imran Ibn Hasin that "...the verse of mut'a was revealed in the Book of Allah. So we acted in accordance with it during the time of the Holy Prophet. No verse was revealed to make it unlawful, nor did the Holy Prophet ever prohibit it." One man decided to change this law. Bukhari says that the man was Umar.

                    Muslim in his Sahih, part I, in the chapter of Nikatu'l-Mut'a, says "Hasan Halwa'i reported to us that he was told by Abdu'r-Razzaq, who was informed by Ibn Jarih, who was told by 'Ata that Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari came to Mecca for the Umra and they went to him at his residence. People asked him many questions. When they came to the question of mut'a he said, 'Yes, we used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet and during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar.'" Also in the same book in part I, in the chapter of al-Mut'a Bi'l-Hajj wa'l-Umra, it is narrated on the authority of Abu Nazara that he said: "I was in the company of Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari when a man came and said, 'There is a difference of opinion between Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair concerning the two mut'as, Mut'atu'n-Nisa and Mut'atu'l-Hajj.' Then Jabir said, 'We have performed both of these during the time of the Holy Prophet. Thereafter, when Umar forbade it, we could not do it.'"

                    Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, part I, p.25, narrates Abu Nazara's report in another way. Also both narrate another report from Jabir that he said: "In the days of the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr, we used to practice mut'a for the consideration of a handful of dates and flour until Umar forbade it in the case of Amr Bin Harith."

                    Hamidi, in his Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, narrates from Abdullah Ibn Abbas that he said: "We used to practice mut'a during the time of the Holy Prophet. When Umar was caliph, he said that 'Allah Almighty made lawful whatever He liked for His Holy Prophet. Now he is dead, and the Qur'an takes his place. So when you begin the Hajj or the Umra, you should complete them as Allah has ordered you. You should repent of and abstain from mut'a. Bring him who has practiced mut'a to me so that I may stone him.'"

                    There are many such reports in your own reliable books showing that mut'a was permissible during the days of the Holy Prophet. The companions practiced it until Umar made it unlawful.

                    Besides these reports, some of the companions, like Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id Ibn Jabir and Sa'd have recited the verse of mut'a in this way, "And as such of them you had mut'a with until such time as was fixed."

                    Jarullah Zamakhshari reports in his Kashshaf from Ibn Abbas and also Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, vol.III, writing about this holy verse and Imam Nuwi in his Sharh-e-Muslim, chapter I, Nikatu'l-Mut'a report from Nazari that Qazi Ayaz stated that "Abdullah Bin Mas'ud, the writer of wahi (i.e., recorder of revelations), used to recite this verse in the same way, that is, 'until such time as has been fixed.'"

                    Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi, after quoting the statement of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas, said: "The community did not reject their recitation of the verse in this way, so what we have said has been accepted through consensus." Again on the next page he argues in this way: "This reading evidently proves that mut'a had the sanction of religion. We have no difference of opinion that mut'a was permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet."

                    COMMAND PERMITTING MUT'A
                    WAS NOT REPEALED

                    Sheikh: Can you prove that it was lawful during the days of the Holy Prophet but was not repealed later?

                    Well-Wisher: There is plenty of proof that it was not annulled. The most convincing argument is that mut'a had been permitted from the time of the Holy Prophet until the middle of the caliphate of Umar.

                    Caliph Umar's own statement has been generally reported by your ulema. They have written that he went to the pulpit and said, "In the time of the Prophet two mut'as were permitted. I make both of them unlawful, and if any one does it, I will punish him."

                    Sheikh: What you say is correct, but my point is that there are many orders which were current earlier in the time of the Holy Prophet but were repealed later. Mut'a was also permitted in the beginning, but later it was forbidden.

                    Well-Wisher: Since the basis and foundation of religion is the Holy Qur'an, if any ordinance is present in the Holy Qur'an and is abrogated, its abrogation must also be present in it. Now please let me know where in the Holy Qur'an this order has been repealed.

                    Sheikh: In sura 23, Mu'minin (The Believers), verse 6 repeals this order. It says "Except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for surely they are not blameworthy." (22:6)

                    This verse lays down two conditions for conjugal relations: marriage, or intercourse with slaves. So this verse proves that the ordinance of mut'a has been repealed.

                    Well-Wisher: This verse does not in any way prove that mut'a was repealed; it confirms it. The woman united by mut'a is the real wife of the man. Had she not been his real wife, Allah would not have ordered her mehr (dowry) to be paid. Moreover, the sura of The Believers was revealed while the Prophet was in Mecca, the sura of Women while he was in Medina. Obviously the Meccan chapters preceded the Medinan chapter. Can verse A abrogate verse B, if verse A came before B?

                    OF MUT'A WAS NOT ABROGATED
                    Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari, Salama Ibn Akwa', Abu'dh-Dharr Ghifari, Subra Bin Ma'bad, Akwa' Bin Abdullah Al-Aslami and Imran Bin Hasin have stated that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated. Moreover, your eminent ulema have also held that it was not abrogated. For instance, Jarullah Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir-e-Kashshaf regarding Abdullah Ibn Abbas's statement that the verse of mut'a was one of the clear ordinances of the Holy Qur'an, says that this verse was not repealed. Imam Malik Bin Anas also said that the permissibility of mut'a had not been repealed.

                    Mulla Sa'idu'd-din Taftazani in Sharh-e-Maqasid, Burhanu'd-din Hanafi in his Hidaya, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his Fathu'l-Bari and others also have reported the statement and verdict of Malik who says: "Mut'a is lawful. It is permitted by religion. Its lawfulness, as confirmed by Ibn Abbas, is quite well known and most of his companions from Yeman and Mecca have practiced it. At another place he says: "Mut'a is lawful since it has been permitted and its lawfulness and permissibility hold good unless it is repealed." You will notice that until Malik's death there was no evidence that the ordinance of mut'a had been annulled.

                    Moreover, your prominent commentators, like Zamakhshari, Baghawi, and Imam Tha'labi have adhered to the position of Ibn Abbas and other distinguished companions and have believed in the lawfulness of mut'a.

                    ALL CONDITIONS OF WEDLOCK
                    ARE FULFILLED BY MUT'A

                    Sheikh: Since there are no provisions for a woman united by mut'a, such as inheritance, divorce, after divorce (waiting period) and maintenance, as are necessary for a wife, she cannot be a real wife.

                    Well-Wisher: A woman joined with a man through mut'a is protected by all the provisions of any wife except those which have been reasonably excluded. Mut'a is a kind of nika (marriage), which entitles a woman to wifehood. Of course for the convenience of the community and to save them from lawlessness, some of its conditions and formalities have been waived. As for its conditions, first, it is not proved that inheritance is a necessary condition of marriage. Many women, in spite of being wives, do not receive an inheritance from their husbands. For example, disobedient wives or those who murder are deprived of inheritance.

                    Second, it is not definitely established whether a woman united by mut'a is deprived of her right of inheritance. The jurists differ in their opinions about it, and such differences exist among you also.

                    Third, the Imamiyya ulema unanimously hold the view that a woman united by mut'a must also observe 'idda (waiting period before re-marriage). Its shortest period has been fixed as 45 days. If the husband dies, she should observe the usual 'idda of four months and ten days, whether she had had sexual intercourse with her husband or not, or whether she has passed the age of menstruation or not.

                    Fourth, the right of maintenance is not a necessary condition attached to marriage. There are a number of wives who are not entitled to maintenance, such as those who are disobedient or who murder their husbands.

                    Fifth, the expiration of the agreed upon period is itself her divorce. Similarly, with the consent of her husband, she may be divorced before the expiration date.

                    Therefore none of the conditions that you have mentioned has any force. A renowned Shia scholar, Allama Jamalu'd-Din Hilli (Hasan Bin Yusuf Bin Ali Bin Mutahhar), has given in detail the same arguments in reply to the views of your prominent ulema. I have referred to them briefly. Anyone who wants to study it in detail, may consult Allama Hilli's Mabahithat-e-Sunniyya wa Ma'rifat-e-Nussairiyya.

                    WAS QUR'ANIC COMMAND FOR MUT'A
                    ABROGATED BY THE HOLY PROPHET?

                    Sheikh: Besides the holy verse there are also a large number of hadith which say that the ordinance concerning mut'a had been abrogated during the time of the Holy Prophet.

                    Well-Wisher: Kindly let us know about that order of abrogation.

                    Sheikh: It has been narrated with some variations. Some reporters say that it was decreed on the day of the conquest of Khaibar, some say it happened on the day of conquest of Mecca, some reports say that it was on the occasion of the Last Pilgrimage, and some say that it was on the day of Tabuk. Others, however, are of the opinion that the order of nullity was revealed on the occasion of Umratu'l-Qaza (The Farewell Pilgrimage).


                    Well-Wisher: The contradictory reports clearly prove that there was no such order of abrogation. And how can those reports be relied upon when, on the contrary, there are many hadith reported in Sahih-e-Sitta, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahihain, Jam'-e-Bainu's-Sahih-e-Sitta, Musnad, etc, from distinguished companions which prove that this verse was not abrogated until the caliphate of Umar.

                    The most compelling argument that your own ulema have themselves cited is the statement of Caliph Umar, who said: "I make both those two mut'as which were current in the days of the Holy Prophet, unlawful." Had there been any verse, or order of the Holy Prophet, the caliph would have said: "According to the instructions of the Holy Prophet, which is supported by the Qur'anic verse, if any one committed the unlawful act in violation of the abrogated ordinance, I will punish him." Such a statement would have been more impressive for the people. But he merely said: " Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet, I make them unlawful."

                    If, however, your claim is correct and the verse of mut'a was abrogated, why didn't the pupils of the Holy Prophet, like Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Imran Bin Hashim and other companions act upon it. Your own great traditionists and historians, including Bukhari and Muslim, have recorded this fact. All these things clearly prove that from the time of the Holy Prophet to the caliphate of Umar the companions followed this ordinance.


                    So it is clear that mut'a shall continue to be lawful forever. Abu Isa Muhammad Bin Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, which is regarded as one of the six Sahih by you, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Khattab what he considered about Mut'a-e-Nisa. He said: "Of course, it is lawful." The man said again, "But your father, the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."

                    For the reports which have been narrated, perhaps people later forged hadith in order to support Caliph Umar's statement. The matter is too clear to call for any further elucidation. The fact is that you have no real evidence for the unlawfulness of mut'a except the statement of Caliph Umar.

                    Sheikh: Caliph Umar's statement in itself is the strongest evidence for Muslims, and they must follow it. If he had not heard it from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said that.

                    Well-Wisher: Is Caliph Umar's statement so compelling that Muslims must follow it? I have not seen a single hadith in your books, in which the Holy Prophet said that Umar Bin Khattab's statement was a confirmed source or that Muslims should follow it. On the other hand your books are filled with reliable hadith saying that we should follow the descendants of the Holy Prophet, particularly Ali. I have referred to some of these hadith on previous nights. The Ahle Bait of the Holy Prophet have said that the ordinance of mut'a was not abrogated.

                    You said that had Caliph Umar not heard about the order of cancellation from the Holy Prophet, he would not have said what he did. But this is easily disproved. First, if Caliph Umar had heard of the cancellation of the order of mut'a from the Holy Prophet, he should have spoken about it during the life of the Holy Prophet up to the period of his own caliphate. This would have been especially important since he saw prominent companions had been practicing it, and it was his duty to tell the people that the practice of mut'a had been annulled. Why did he not perform the duty of prevention of evil?

                    Second, the practice, which had been current among the community by order of the Holy Prophet, could only be nullified by the Holy Prophet. There should have been no delay in this case. Does it stand to reason that if an order for the Community had been circulated and was later abrogated, would the Holy Prophet have spoken about it to no one except Umar? And would it have made sense that Umar would not have told anybody about it until late in his own caliphate? During all this period when the community continued to follow this (so-called) abrogated order, did no responsibility lie with Umar?

                    You say that the prohibition of "nullified and irreligious " practice could not be made known to others and therefore the community continued to follow it. Can anybody else except the Holy Prophet be held responsible for not proclaiming the abrogation of an order, having told only Umar of it? Is it not infidelity to say that the Holy Prophet neglected to perform his mission and that the community because of its ignorance, continued acting upon an abrogated order for a long time?

                    Third, if the order of mut'a had been annulled during the time of the Holy Prophet and Umar had heard of this from the Holy Prophet, Umar could have said when he prohibited it that he had himself heard the Holy Prophet say that the practice of mut'a had been banned. Obviously, if he had referred to the Holy Prophet's statement, the community would have been much impressed by it. But he said, "During the time of the Holy Prophet, two mut'as were permitted, but I make them unlawful. Now I will stone those who do it." Is it not the duty of the Holy Prophet to declare things lawful or unlawful? Or, can it be the right of a caliph who has been appointed by the people?

                    I don't understand on what basis Umar declared unlawful what Allah made lawful. How strange it is that the Holy Prophet never said that he made a certain thing lawful or unlawful. Whenever he announced any order, he said that Allah had ordered him to convey it to the people. How bold Umar is when he says: "Two mut'as were permitted in the time of the Holy Prophet. I make both of them unlawful. I will punish those who commit those acts."

                    COMMAND OF ALLAH OR OF
                    THE HOLY PROPHET MAY NOT BE
                    ABROGATED BY A CALIPH

                    Sheikh: Certainly you are aware that some of our scholars of high learning believe that since the Holy Prophet was a mujtahid (authority) in the matter of religious orders, another mujtahid, by virtue of his own findings, may set aside the former order. It was on this basis that Umar said, "I make those two things unlawful."

                    Well-Wisher: In an attempt to set right one wrong, you perpetrate many others. Does ijtihad have any significance in contradicting an injunction of the Holy Qur'an. Is not your statement quite absurd and opposed to the Qur'anic verses?

                    Allah Almighty says in the sura of Jonah: "Say: It is not proper for me that I should change it myself. I follow naught but what is revealed to me." (10:15)

                    If it is true that the Holy Prophet could not make any changes in religious order unless he was ordered by Allah to do so, how could Umar, who had no knowledge of revelation, have the authority to make unlawful what Allah had made lawful?

                    In the sura of Najm (The Star) Allah says: "Nor does he speak out of caprice. It is naught but revelation that is revealed." (53:3-4)

                    In the sura of Ahqaf (The Sand Dunes), Allah says: "Say: I am not the first of the apostles, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you. I do not follow anything but what has been revealed to me." (46:9)

                    Obedience to the Holy Prophet is obligatory. No one, Umar or anyone else, has the right to interfere with divine orders and make unlawful what Allah made lawful.


                    Sheikh: Umar definitely thought it expedient and considered it in the best interest of the people to abrogate that order. We find these days that some people take a woman in mut'a for the sake of pleasure for an hour, a month, or a year. Later, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, they leave her.

                    Well-Wisher: This is ridiculous! What does the lawfulness of this Islamic command have to do with people's indulgence in illicit sexual relations? If we followed your reasoning, perhaps permanent wedlock should be made unlawful. After all, people marry noble girls for their money or their beauty and later leave them, without giving them any financial support. Since some people do this, do you think that permanent wedlock should be abrogated?

                    No. We should encourage people to be honest and give them proper religious instruction. If a righteous man does not find in himself the capacity to shoulder the responsibility of having a permanent wife, and if he wishes to avoid an unlawful action, he would, in compliance with the code of religion, wish to take a woman in mut'a or temporary wedlock. Accordingly, he would like to know the conditions of mut'a because he knows that for every order there are certain conditions. At the time of mutual agreement, he would provide the amount of mehr (dower) for the woman which would be sufficient for her maintenance during her 'idda, which is 45 days, after the term of the period of mut'a.

                    Second, after the separation, he would look after the woman during the entire period of 'idda. If she were pregnant, he would take proper care of the mother so that he might take his child after it is born. If some people fail to honor these conditions, it does not follow that a valid order of lawfulness has been abrogated.

                    The welfare of the community was better understood by Allah and the Holy Prophet than by Umar. And they did not prohibit mut'a. If they didn't prohibit it, no caliph or imam, or any other man, even one divinely commissioned, can of his own accord make unlawful what Allah has made lawful. So your claim, that it was in the best interest of the community that people give up mut'a, is untenable.

                    Mut'a was not the cause of the spread of lawlessness; rather it was the banning of it which spread lewdness. Those young men and women who cannot afford to join in permanent wedlock if they cannot control and restrain their sexual appetite, will indulge in illicit sex. And of course widespread adultery and fornication destroy the moral character of entire nations.

                    Imam Tha'labi and Tabari in their Tafsir and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, writing in connection with the verse of mut'a, narrate from Amiru'l-Mu'minin Ali that he said: "If Umar had not put a restraint on mut'a, no one, except an unfortunate man, would have committed fornication."

                    Also Ibn Jarih and Amr Bin Dinar report from Abdullah Ibn Abbas who said: "Mut'a was really a mercy of Allah, which He gave to the community of Muhammad. If Umar had not banned it, no one except an unlucky man would have committed adultery."

                    So according to the views of the companions of the Holy Prophet, the cause of the prevalence of adultery was the prohibition of mut'a, rather than the practice of it. In fact all the divine commands regarding lawful and unlawful acts which have been transmitted to the community through the Holy Prophet were intended for the welfare of the people. They continue to benefit them today.

                    [This message has been edited by Lashkar-e-Abbas (edited May 15, 2001).]






                        Please read my earlier post. It is an excerpt from the book "Peshawar Nights".

                        Whether I am Shia or not doesn't change the reality that Mut'aa is lawful. The practice being prevalent in Iran and other Shia dominated communities and not being allowed in Sunni dominated communities doesn't change the fact that it is lawful.

                        So please don't resort to childish arguments.










                            Don't try to drag this off topic. First off... before you say anything please provide proof. Secondly check these sites out.. you'll get your answers. Have you ever been to a Shia site to check their point of view? or did you get your info about shias from Sunni sources?

                            Ignorance is the root of all evils

                            > 1. [ ] -->Common Misconceptions
                            > [ ]
                            >2,3. [ ]-->Common Misconceptions
                            >4. [ ]
                            >5. [ ]
                            >6. [ ]
                            >7. [ ]
                            >8. [ ]
                            >9. [ ]
                            > [ ]
                            >10. [ ]

                            Time for class. Be back later



                              Obviously you are always asking for evidence.
                              So i have taken the liberty to take u to class. Here is the evidence that u have been yearning for. And yes I do have regular dialogue with many Shi'ite people who ulimately hasten to retreat once the evidence is put towards them.

                              Here we go.

                              In order fo u to fully understand your great Imaam Khomeinis's views, read:

                              Al -Hakoomatul Islamiyaah pages 52-53.Here, Khomeini elevates the Imaams as I have already mentioned, but read the whole book. He also confirms this by using the Al Kaafi.

                              Khomeini in his book Al-Hukoomatul-Islamiyyah pages 52-53 (The Islamic Government), claims that the Twelve Imams are infallible, and he raises them to a level above the heavenly angels and the commissioned prophets of Allaah; Khomeini stresses: "Certainly, the Imaam commands a noble station and lofty position; a creative vicegerency to whose rule and power submit the very atoms of all creations(!) And an essential tenet of our Shi'ite sect is that the Imaams have a position which is reached neither by the angels (in the highest heaven) nor by any commissioned messenger of God." He further stated: "The teachings and directives of the Imaams are just like those of the Qur'aan - it is compulsory on one to follow them and carry them out." In short, Khomeini and his fellow clergymen adhere to all of the perverse tenets of the Shi'ite faith as laid out in detail in Al-Kaafi. Khomeini clearly admits this in his book Al-Hukoomatul-Islamiyyah: "Do you think that it is enough for us, with respect to our religion, to collect its rulings and directives in Al-Kaafi, then put it on a shelf and neglect it?" (What Khomeini means here is that he not only affirms and believes all that is in the Shi'ite book Al-Kaafi, but he also sees it as obligatory to adhere to it and put its rulings and directives into effect in the Shi'ite state).

                              There are two clear texts from Al-Kaafi of Al-Kulaini, which elucidate the Shi'ites' perverse position regarding the Qur'an. The first reads:

                              I heard Abu Jafar (upon whom be peace) say: "None of the people has claimed that he collected the Quran completely as it was reveal- ed except a liar. No one collected and memorized the Qur'an as it was revealed except `Ali bin Abi Taalib and the Imams after him. 16

                              Every Shi'ite is required to believe in this text from Al-Kaafi as an article of their faith.

                              The second of the two texts from Al-Kaafi mentioned above, is at- tributed to the son of Ja'far As-Saadiq. It reads:

                              It is related that Abu Baser said: "I entered upon Abu `Abdullah [Ja'far As-Sadiq]... [Who] said `Verily we have with us the Qur'an of Fatimah (upon whom be peace).' I said: `What is the Qur'an of Fatimah?' He replied: `It contains three times as much as this Qur'an of yours. By Allah, it does not contain one single letter of your Qur'an' . P

                              The shiya themselves have a hadith narrated by Ali which states that the Prophet made muta a haram on the day of Khaiber (Book of Tahdeeb: vol. 7, pg. 251, rewaya 10). The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of safety (taqiya). In Book of Istebsar: vol. 3, pg. 142, rewaya 5, there is a declaration by Ali that muta a is haram. Again they accuse Ali of lying for safety reasons (taqiya).

                              In the history of Islam, The Prophet (saw) allowed muta a twice in his lifetime. The first time the Prophet (saw) allowed it for three days, at the war of Khaiber, and after three days it was made haram . Once Ali argued with a man who believed in Muta a and told him that the Prophet made muta a and the meat of donkey haram on the day of Khaiber (Bukhari vol. 7, pg. 287 and vol. 4 pg. 134). This hadith can also be found in shiya hadith books, which I will mention later. The second time the Prophet (saw) allowed it was at the conquest of Mecca, for three days, and then he made it haram again till the day of Judgment (Muslim vol. 4 pg. 133). Notice, the practice of muta a was then made haram till the Day of Judgement.This is confirmed with the hadiths in the following books: Imam Ahmed s Musnad vol. 16 pg. 192-193, Muslim vol. 4, pg. 132, Bayhaki vol. 7 pg. 293-294. Since there was a time when muta a was halal. Therefore, one can find hadith saying that it was halal. However, the latter hadith, which follows the final order of jurisprudence set by the the Prophet(saw), takes precedence over the former hadith.

                              The Imami Shia have not only misinterpreted the Qur'an, but they have made actual alterations in the text itself:

                              The false verse, "And we made 'Ali your in-law" has been added to Surah Al-Inshirah (Al-Kafi p.289)

                              In 25:74, the verse "And make us a leader (Imam) for the God-fearing" is replaced with "And make for us a leader (Imam) from among the God-fearing."

                              Of even greater audacity is the addition of an entirely fabricated surah to the Qur'an, called, "Surah al-Walayah" Translation of this false surah is as follows:

                              1) O believers, believe in the Prophet and the guardian(wali), whom We sent to guide you to the straight path.

                              2) A Prophet and a Guardian, one from the other, and I am the Knower, the Wise.

                              3) Verily those who fulfil their covenant to Allah will have gardens of pleasure.

                              4) And for those who deny our signs when they are read to them, 5) Verily they will have a terrible place in Hell when they are called for on the Day of Judgement, 'Where are the wrong-doers who denied the messengers?'

                              6) He only created them in truth and Allah will surely make them victorious until a time in the near future.

                              7) Glorify the praises of your Lord and 'Ali is among the witnesses.

                              But perhaps the greatest level of audacity is in the assertion that the Qur'an that we now possess is not the true Qur'an at all, but rather a fabrication:

                              "Abu Baseer reported that he said to Imam Ja'far, "O Abu Abdullah(Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq) What is Mushaf Fatimah?" He replied "It is a Qur'an containing three times what is found in your copy of the Qur'an; yet by Allah, it does not contain even a single letter from your Qur'an." (Al-Kafi p.385)

                              This incredible belief that the Imams know the unseen can be amply attested by the following chapter headings in Al-Kafi fil-Usool.

                              1) Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of All that was given to the angels and the Prophets. (Al-Kafi p.255)

                              2) Chapter: The Imams know when they will die, and they only die by their choice. (Al-Kafi p.258)

                              3) Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of the past and future; and nothing is hidden from them. (Al-Kafi p.260)

                              Clearly, the book Al-Kafi fil Usool contains such extreme statements of kufr (disbelief) and shirk (polytheism) that it alone is sufficient to push anyone who believes in it into the Hellfire for eternity. Yet Ayatallah Khomeini states that the sum total of his religion is contained in it, saying: "Do you think it is enough for our religious life to have it's laws summed up in Al-Kafi and then placed upon a shelf?" (Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyyah p.72)

                              Al- Kulaini recorded in his book AL-Kaafi attributes and descriptions of the twelve Imams such as would imply their elevation from the human level to that of the gods of ancient Greek pagans. To quote all such fables from AL-Kaafi and other books would require a large volume book. By way of illustration, it will suffice to list some of the qoutes from AL-Kaafi:

                              * " The Imams posses all the knowledge granted to angels, prophets and messengers." (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.255)
                              * " The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their choice. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.258)
                              * " The Imaams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future, and nothing is concealed from them."(Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.260)
                              * " The Imams have knowledge of all the reaveled books, regardless of the languages in which they were revealed. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.260)
                              * " No one complied the Quran completely except the Imams, and they encompass all of its knowledge. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.227)
                              * " Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.231)
                              * " When the Imams' time comes, they will rule in accordance with the ruling of the Prophet David and his dynesty. These Imams will not need to ask for presentation of evidence before passing their judgements. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.397)
                              * " There is not a single truth possesd by a people saved that which originated with the Imams, and everything which did not proceed from them is false. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.399)
                              * " All of the earth belongs to the Imams. " (Al- Kulaini. AL- Kaafi, p.407)

                              Now, if this is not sufficient proof then I do not know what is. You see my friend, I have been studying comparative faiths for a very long time, and sectarianism is just one aspect.

                              Like I said, do not take my word for it, research yourself.