Prostitution Permitted By Muhammad
Sirach
permitted his Companions to contract temporary marriage with women in the
Year of Victory. So I and a friend of mine from Banu Sulaim went out, until
we found a young woman of Banu Amir who was like a young she-camel having a
long neck. We made proposal to her for contracting temporary marriage with
us, and presented to her our cloaks (as dower). She began to look and found
me more handsome than my friend, but found the cloak of my friend more
beautiful than my cloak. She thought in her wind for a while, but then
preferred me to my friend. So I remained with her for three (nights), and
then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to part with
them (such women).
(Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3258)
What's the difference between "Temporary Marriage" and Prostitution? How
could Muhammad permit such sexual encounters?
Moataz Emam
> What's the difference between "Temporary Marriage" and Prostitution? How
> could Muhammad permit such sexual encounters?
Temporary marriages were allowed by Mohammed on two occasions by
necessity, since they provided legitimacy to something that would
otherwise have been chaotic. After that he prohibited it and said that
indeed it would be prostitution to go on with it.
The reasons it was allowed twice are in the history books. Look them up
and you will see that it was a matter of choice between two evils. I do
not see any fault in that. Islam is the religion of Fitrah, meaning it
recognizes our weaknesses and know that we are not saints.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Altway
news:amk7t0$bih$1...@blue.rahul.net...
Comment:-
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to part with
them (such women).
They had misunderstood.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Abdalla Alothman
"Sirach" <Sir...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<amk7t0$bih$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>From the hadeeth Sirach quoted from SaHeeH Muslim, we leave the final
sentence:
> [...] So I remained with her for three (nights), and then Allah's
> Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to part with them
> (such women).
> (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3258)
We wonder why did the person in the Hadeeth remain with that woman for
three nights and then they were ordered to leave those women. The
answer is in the SAME reference:
SaHeeH Muslim Book 008, Number 3255:
Sabra al-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father that while he
was with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon hm) he said: 0 people, I
had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah
has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has
any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off,
and do not take back anything you have given to then (as dower).
> What's the difference between "Temporary Marriage" and Prostitution?
Temporary marriage was permissable at a certain period in islam. So
was drinking, gambling, and eating non-Halal food. But the method
Islam used to get rid of unwanted practices was gradual, step by step,
ishway ishway, Habba Habba, etc.
> How could Muhammad permit such sexual encounters?
Did he? See below:
MuwaTT-a Al-Imaam Malik. Book 28, Number 28.18.41:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abdullah and
Hasan, the sons of Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib from their father,
mayAllah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, forbade temporary marriage with women
and the flesh of domestic donkeys on the Day of Khaybar.
MuwaTT-a Al-Imaam Malik Book 28, Number 28.18.42:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr
that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ''Rabia
ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant
by him.'' Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak,
saying, "This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have
ordered stoning and done away with it! "
SaHeeH Al-Bukhaari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 527:
Narrated 'Ali bin Abi Talib:
On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a
(i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat.
SaHeeH Muslim Book 007, Number 2821:
Ghunaim b. Qais said: I asked Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased
with him) about Mut'a, whereupon he said: We did that, and it was the
day when he was an unbeliever living in (one of the) houses of Mecca.
Now this guy comes goes to the Muslims and tells them that Islam
permits prostitution. We know what's the punishment for zina in the
Quran, and we saw above what the Sunnah says about Mut'ah (a lot more
can be found in the Hadeeth sources). However, let's see who really
permitted prostitution!
>From the Christian Testament in John 8, we read:
(3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in
adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, (4) They say unto
him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. (5)
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but
what sayest thou? [...] (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said
unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(This popular passage is in the KJV version of their holy book, I
didn't include it all because it is long!)
Here we have it all from the Christian Testament. The Jews caught a
woman "in the very act," as their book says. They went to the
Messenger Jesus (a) and told him that the law (which he, the
god-in-flesh to them, revealed to Moses) states that she should be
stoned, and they asked for the opinion of Jesus. He diverted the
issue. Then, he told the woman who was caught in the act: Go, and sin
no more.
Below are some points we should consider.
First, the law given to the Messenger Moses (a) was annulled by the
Messenger Jesus (a) who is God to the Christians, and who supposed to
have revealed the stoning penalty to Moses. So just in case Sirach
might oppose how Mut'ah was not considered a crime by the Messenger
Muhammad (s) and later it was forbidden, he has an example from his
holy book to worry about.
Secondly, the passage tells us that the woman was caught "in the act."
Meaning, that people saw her committing adultery. Jesus (whether he is
a Messenger/Prophet to Sirach or a God) dismissed the penalty of
stoning. He did not provide any alternative to the crime of adultery,
except what he said, "Go, and sin no more."
Thirdly, a crime that's not associated with a penalty is not really a
crime. To the Christians, adultery is indeed a crime, but it has no
penalty. So it is technically not a crime.
Therefore, according to the Christian religion, adultery is basically
a permissible crime (if that makes any sense). The only penalty seems
to be advisory; you just tell the prostitute: "Go, and sin no more."
If she repeats the same crime sometime later, all what can be done is
to tell her: "Go, and sin no more." If she does it again and again and
again, nothing can be done but saying: Go, and (PLEASE?) sin no more.
But we see that in Christian societies, they DON'T EVEN apply what
their testament tells them they should do. They don't tell the
prostitutes, "Please go and sin no more." They don't even let them
sign on a "go and sin no more" pledge. But try crossing a red signal
in a Christian society, and see what happens.
So we ask Sirach: Who really permitted prostitution??
Salam,
Bubader.
rj...@mailandnews.com
The traditions about the abrogation of Mut'ah (temporary marriage) are not consisent.
Some say it was made unlawful on the day of Khaybar, some say it was on the day of the
conquest (of Mecca); some of them maintain that it occurred at the battle of Tabuk, while
some claim that it happened at the time of the final pilgrimage!
Some of them maintain it happened at the time of the `umra al-Qaza whilst some of them say
it happened in the year of Awtas (battle of Hunayn)!
Moreover, these are all opposed by the Sihahs of al-Bukhari and Muslim which prove that
there was no abrogation and that the prohibition and interdiction were issued by the second
Caliph due to an unforeseen act of `Amr b. Harith which occurred in his time!
The difference between prostitution and marriage be it temporary or permanent is that in
marriage a woman observes an 'iddah (waiting period of several months) before remarrying.
Also a man in both permanent and temporary marriage takes full responsibility if any
children are born from the union.
There is a difference of opinion between the islamic schools on this issue. The Sunnites
say that a time clause is not permissable in a marriage contract while the Shiites maintain
that it is permissible.
rj
Sirach
could Muhammad permit such sexual encounters?
>Temporary marriages were allowed by Mohammed on two occasions by necessity,
since they provided legitimacy to something that would
>otherwise have been chaotic. After that he prohibited it and said that
indeed it would be prostitution to go on with it.
Right, so Temporary Marriage is "Legitimate" Prostitution. What was
Muhammad doing permitting "legitimate" prostitution anyway? If I was a
Muslim I'd be ashamed of this, it's a deficency in your religion and a black
mark on the character of Muhammad and his followers.
>The reasons it was allowed twice are in the history books. Look them up
>and you will see that it was a matter of choice between two evils. I do
>not see any fault in that.
The choice being:
(1) You cheat on your wife and risk fathering a child with a prostitute
because you can't control yourself
(2) You control your lust
If you'd chose (1) and you can't see any fault in that then there is
something wrong.
> Islam is the religion of Fitrah, meaning it recognizes our weaknesses and
know that we are not saints.
Tell your wife that.
Eric
news:ammfob$svr$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Thirdly, a crime that's not associated with a penalty is not really a
> crime. To the Christians, adultery is indeed a crime, but it has no
> penalty. So it is technically not a crime.
Would the author (authors?) of this post or Muslims in general make any
distinction between a *crime* and a *sin*?
I cannot speak for Christians in general, but I don't think my opinion is
atypical. A sin is any evil thought, word or deed that is an offense
against the law of God. A crime is an offense against the law of the state.
That which is a crime is not always a sin -- witness Corrie Ten Boom
sheltering Jews from the Nazi's during the Holocaust, or the many people who
assisted fugitive slaves along the Underground Railroad. And that which is
a sin is not always a crime -- as in the case of adultery.
Regarding the question in this thread I think it can be argued that a story
regarding adultery does not necessarily have any value in a discussion on
prostitution. Although it is commonly believed that the woman was a
prostitute, there is nothing in the text explicitly calling her a
prostitute, and she was not accused of prostitution. So your conclusion on
this basis that Jesus allowed prostitution is false -- as we would expect it
to be for a prophet of Allah. Why couldn't you answer the question with a
simple no and leave it at that? What value is there in slamming another
religion? Does that really advance your argument?
I think that Muslims in general recognize that there are some sins the state
should not be in the business of punishing -- but it does seem to be a point
of fierce disagreement among yourselves.
Sirach
(such women). They had misunderstood.
What did they misunderstand?
Shite Muslims can still practice Temporary Marriage today. There is a
phrase in their Qur'an that permits it that is absent from yours. Which
Qur'an is correct?
Moataz Emam
> Shite Muslims can still practice Temporary Marriage today. There is a
> phrase in their Qur'an that permits it that is absent from yours. Which
> Qur'an is correct?
No there isn't. The Quran is the same for the Shi'a as well as the
Sunnis. It is the interpretation of verses that people disagree on.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> Right, so Temporary Marriage is "Legitimate" Prostitution. What was
> Muhammad doing permitting "legitimate" prostitution anyway? If I was a
> Muslim I'd be ashamed of this, it's a deficency in your religion and a black
> mark on the character of Muhammad and his followers.
I am not ashamed! Simply because I realize that right and wrong are not
absolute concepts in everything. Some things shift by necessity, and the
lesser of two evils may be chosen based on society and circumstance. In
fact, I see that Temporary Marriage is certainly better than the
excessive sexual freedom that the west enjoys. Instead of one night
stands that could get you STD's, for example.
> The choice being:
> (1) You cheat on your wife and risk fathering a child with a prostitute
> because you can't control yourself
> (2) You control your lust
> If you'd chose (1) and you can't see any fault in that then there is
> something wrong.
Can everyone control their lust? Is everyone a saint? Islam is a
religion that recognizes people's weaknesses. It does not impose
hardship on us. So here we are, 7th century Arabs who are used to having
10 or fifteen wives plus scores of slave women for pleasure. We become
Muslims and this does not change for a while. Then gradually a change is
imposed on us. Instead of unlimited wives, we are restricted to four,
with conditions. Slavery is recognized, but frowned upon and regulated.
You can no longer sleep with your slave if she does not wish it. Your
children from her are born free and recognized as yours and share your
fatherhood and more. Then we are sent on a war for months and years on
end in a far away land away from our 'women'. Before Islam we would have
simply bought sexual favors from women without any restrictions. So
Mohammed allows Temporary marriages that recognize the rights of both
parties and any resulting children. Then as part of the gradual
transition to a better system, at the end even Temporary marriages are
disallowed. That is why I disagree with the Shi'a on this issue. Their
views defeat the purpose of the whole thing.
> > Islam is the religion of Fitrah, meaning it recognizes our weaknesses and
> know that we are not saints.
> Tell your wife that.
My wife knows my views. She believes as I do. She knows that I would
never marry anyone else because I know the reason behind every license
the Quran gave me. I know that I cannot marry more than one woman, even
if I wanted to. My wife knows what I believe and knows everything about
me. YOU tell that to the scores of western wives who know nothing about
their husband's sexual escapades. Tell it to the millions who are abused
everyday, physically and emotionally.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Saqib Virk
> >
> > Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to
> > part with them (such women). They had misunderstood.
>
> What did they misunderstand?
SV
Those that imagine the Prophet ever sanctioned temporary
marriage/prostitution misunderstand.
> Shite Muslims can still practice Temporary Marriage today.
SV
The vast majority of Muslims understand that the practice is forbidden.
> There is a phrase in their Qur'an that permits it that is absent from
> yours.
SV
That is a pathetic lie that even you should not believe.
> Which Qur'an is correct?
Pathetic.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Sirach
Muhammad doing permitting "legitimate" prostitution anyway? If I was a
Muslim I'd be ashamed of this, it's a deficency in your religion and a black
mark on the character of Muhammad and his followers.
>I am not ashamed! Simply because I realize that right and wrong are not
absolute concepts in everything. Some things shift by necessity, and the
lesser of two evils may be chosen based on society and circumstance. In
fact, I see that Temporary Marriage is certainly better than the excessive
sexual freedom that the west enjoys. Instead of one night stands that could
get you STD's, for example.
Temporary Marriages AND one night stands are wrong, and they are both things
to be ashamed of. Why are you defending evil?
>> The choice being:
(1) You cheat on your wife and risk fathering a child with a prostitute
because you can't control yourself
(2) You control your lust
If you'd chose (1) and you can't see any fault in that then there is
something wrong.
>Can everyone control their lust?
No, adulterers, rapists, and perverts clearly cannot.
>Is everyone a saint? Islam is a religion that recognizes people's
weaknesses. It does not impose hardship on us.
Is remaining faithful to your wife a hardship?
> So here we are, 7th century Arabs who are used to having
>10 or fifteen wives plus scores of slave women for pleasure.
How did Arab men end up with 10 or 15 wives each? Where did all these women
come from? Do Arab women give birth to 1 male child for every 12.5 female?
Please explain where you got your figures from because common sense tells me
they are gross exageration.
>Then we are sent on a war for months and years on
>end in a far away land away from our 'women'.
What were you doing fighting wars in far away lands in the first place?
Were you after war booty, slaves? Could your "women" form temporary
marriages while you were away? Or was this just for the men? Would you
have left your wife at home if you knew she might "have some fun" with
another guy in a "Temporary Marriage" while you were away?
>YOU tell that to the scores of western wives who know nothing about their
husband's sexual escapades. Tell it to the millions who are abused everyday,
physically and emotionally.
We were discussing the Muslim women who's husbands were away with Muhammad
having sexual escapades. Personally I would condemn any husband who was
having sexual escapades apart from his wife whether they be Western or
Islamic. The issue here is that Muhammad didn't condemn them, but rather
permitted it.
Moataz Emam
> The issue here is that Muhammad didn't condemn them, but rather
> permitted it.
The issue here is that you are twisting my words and refusing to see
what I am really saying. I can accept you disagreeing with me, but I
cannot accept what you are really doing: twisting my words to make it
seems I meant something different. This discussion comes to an end, as
far as I am concerned.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Abdalla Alothman
> salaam,
Wa alikum alsalam wa rahmatallah ou barakatuh.
> The traditions about the abrogation of Mut'ah (temporary marriage)
> are not consisent.
Dear Brother RiDwan, I don't intend to get personal with you and Allah
is my witness. I would be critical to the bones with some of the
shee'i beliefs, but I will never try to be critical to any shee'i in
person. I would like to bring some points to your attention.
If my father dies, my mother will be a widow. I accept that Allah (tt)
gave her the right to re-marry another Muslim man as she wishes. I
believe that you may share the same opinion with me. If my sister
gets divorced, I would accept that she can marry another Muslim man as
she wills. And I assume you will accept the same when it comes to your
honorable sisters if you have any.
However, would you accept that your mother or sister become a MUT'AH
for any other man, where they can get married to Zaid this month for
the purpose of MUT'AH (PLEASURE) and then marry 'Ubaid the next month
and then marry 'Ambar the next month and then marry Bilal the next
month and then marry etc. etc. etc.? Do you really accept this to
happen to your mother or sister? If you do accept this on your family,
I don't accept this to happen to your honorable family or mine.
Islam gave women honor; Islam did not make women MUT'AH (PLEASURE),
IMHO. Just imagine if you or I came to this world when a man decided
to have MUT'AH with my mother or your honorable mother. Think about
it, and then you will realize that you and I are above this level of
filth. And if we are not a result of MUT'AH, we must accept that other
human beings should come to this world not as a result of PLEASURE, but
a commitment made by a man and a woman to have a family for as long as
Allah (tt) wills, not when the man and the woman are done having their
PLEASURE (MUT'AH).
> Some say it was made unlawful on the day of Khaybar, some say it
> was on the day of the conquest (of Mecca); some of them maintain
> that it occurred at the battle of Tabuk, while some claim that it
> happened at the time of the final pilgrimage!
So WHAT? The end result is that it was prohibited. Some Hadeeths say
that the Messenger (s) urinated while being close to the ground. And
some Hadeeths say that he urinated while standing. That doesn't mean
it's either this one OR this one. It's means that both circumstances
are permissible.
Just imagine what MUT'AH means (It means pleasure, not temporary). It
means that today your sister or my sister get married to a man by
Mut'ah, and after three days or whatsoever, we see a line of men
waiting to marry our sisters for another three days. Then, three days
later, we see those who did not have the chance to marry our sisters
waiting in line to have their Mut'ah on the account of our sisters.
Do you really believe that this is Islam? If Islam permits such
things, then such practices would have been okay for Fatima! So do you
accept that Fatima would be a Mut'ah for other men? To you the concept
is fine, no? Do you think that the Messenger (s) who said that if
Fatima stole, he (s) would apply the penalty on her--would you accept
that he (s) would allow Mut'ah, and thus allow other Muslim men to
marry his daughter(s) for the sake of PLEASURE (Mut'ah)? Spare
us the double standards, please. There's more than enough evidence that
Mut'ah is Haraam, and we say Al-Hamdillaah.
Islam is a very clear religion. It is free from complications. Let's
make it this way: If you accept that Muslim women become MUT'AH
(PLEASURE) for Muslim men, we certainly must accept this to happen to
our family. Now I don't know about you, but I really don't want my
mother or sister to be a MUT'AH (PLEASURE) for many many men. At the
end, it's up to you to accept Mut'ah or otherwise, Wa qad khaaba man
iftaraa!
Salam,
Abdalla.
rj...@mailandnews.com
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
The Verse of Mut'ah was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it with
Allah's
Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it illegal, nor did the
Prophet
prohibit it till he died. But the man (who regarded it illegal) just expressed
what
his own mind suggested.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.043
[ Note: For the above Hadith, the Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari
(Muhammad
Muhsin Khan) has changed
the word "Mut'ah" to "Hajj-at-Tamatu". This is while in the Arabic text of
the
Hadith of al-Bukhari which is beside
the English text, the word "Mut'a" has been used alone: ]
see http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta1.jpg for arabic text:
Book 008, Number 3249:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful
of
(tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace
be
upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of
'Amr
b. Huraith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3249
It shows that 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas was NOT the only one who believed in the
permissibility of Mut'ah because the above hadeeth is narrated by Jabir b.
'Abdullah.
Note in the above text the word Nastamti'u is used which is again a form x verb
of
mata'a as used in 4:24 of the Qur'an.
see http://www.geocities.com/aly2k1/muta12.jpg for arabic text:
Also notice that Jabir says "WE" and not just "I". That means that according
to
Jabir there were more people other than himself who practiced Mut'ah during the
rule
of the Prophet and Abu Bakr too.
Now there are other traditions that contradict the above saying that the
Prophet allowed Mut'ah until prohibiting it
1.at Khaybar
2.some other traditions say he prohibited it at the conquest of Mecca
3.some say Tabuk,
4.some say the last pilgrimage
5.some say at the time of the `umra al-Qaza
6.some say Awtas, battle of Hunayn.
Moreover, these are all opposed by the Sihahs of al-Bukhari and Muslim which
prove that
there was no abrogation and that the prohibition and interdiction were issued
by the second
Caliph due to an unforeseen act of `Amr b. Harith which occurred in his time!
My conclusion is that all the 6 above types of traditions were made up to
justify 'Umar's prohibition of Mut'ah. Mut'ah was practiced by the companions
of the Prophet during the Prophet's rule (sallallahu 'alayh wa aalih) as well
as during the rule of Abu Bakr!
see again:
Book 008, Number 3249:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful
of
(tales or flour as a dower during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace
be
upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of
'Amr
b. Huraith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3249
ponder on it for a while. you will get all the answers to your questions.
There are very strong traditions that explicitly mention that the Prophet
allowed mut'ah.
There are very strong traditions that explicitly mention that Abu Bakr allowed
mut'ah.
Then there are a host of traditions that contradicit one another on whether the
Prophet prohibited it along with the well known prohibition of 'Umar of mut'ah.
The conclusion is obvious. When a host of traditions contradict one another
about its prohibition they cancel out each other and the premissibility (which
is consistent and certain) remains.
When Allah and His Messenger have made something allowed (eg. Mut'ah) no
believer has the right to oppose it, or express a "humble" opinion contrary to
that. I have no such right, you have no such right, even the 2nd Caliph has no
such right.
And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have
any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter;
and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest
straying. 33:36
If my own mother, daughter or sister does what is allowed for her by the
Shari'ah I have no right to be displeased and mut'ah is allowed by the
shari'ah.
Your whole perception and understanding of mut'ah is distorted and biased. you
have been programmed to believe that mut'ah equals prostitution. You are
wrong. Would the Messenger of Allah allow prostitution? Of course not. But
he did allow mut'ah. Therefore it should be obvious to you that mut'ah is not
prostitution.
In mut'ah there is an 'iddah of basically two months and offspring from the
union have the rights of rearing and inheritance.
salaam,
Ridwaan
Sirach
am really saying. I can accept you disagreeing with me, but I cannot accept
what you are really doing: twisting my words to make it seems I meant
something different. This discussion comes to an end, as far as I am
concerned.
>From the last post:-
Moataz H. Emam:
>> So here we are, 7th century Arabs who are used to having 10 or fifteen
wives plus scores of slave women for pleasure.
Sirach:
> How did Arab men end up with 10 or 15 wives each? Where did all these
women come from? Do Arab women give birth to 1 male child for every 12.5
female? Please explain where you got your figures from because common sense
tells me they are gross exageration.
It seems to me that you argued using exageration, I picked you up on it, and
rather than defending your assertions you are retreating from the discussion
and attacking my conduct to cover your withdrawal.
I asked you to explain where you got your figures from. If you can't
provide the source or back up you assertion by other means then just say so.
Moataz Emam
> I asked you to explain where you got your figures from. If you can't
> provide the source or back up you assertion by other means then just say so.
< SIGH > I have to explain the obvious now? Allright. I did not say that
EVERY MAN had ten to fifteen wife, that was a figure of speech simply to
explain that there was an abundance of sex for men, generally, and that
of course becomes even more so with wealth. As for the source, all you
need to do is read history books. I think, but not sure, this is
discussed in Haykal's book:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/books/MH_LM/default.htm
I know, for instance, that even after Islam, Ali Ibn Abi Talib had 4
wives and 15 slave girls at the time of his death. And these are correct
numbers, see ElAkkad "'abkaryat Al Imam" [The Genuis of the Imam (Ali)].
--
Moataz H. Emam
Abdalla Alothman
> salaam 'alaykum,
Wa alaikum al-salam.
> Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
> Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
>
> The Verse of Mut'ah was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it
> with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it
> illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man
> (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested.
>
> http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.043
>
> [ Note: For the above Hadith, the Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari
> (Muhammad Muhsin Khan) has changed the word "Mut'ah" to
> "Hajj-at-Tamatu". This is while in the Arabic text of the Hadith of
> al-Bukhari which is beside he English text, the word "Mut'a" has been
> used alone: ]
So you edited the contents provided by the author especially to
satisfy your agenda. Nice.
We can also fool others, and play the same game Ridwan is
playing. Look at what some Muslims dug out from a shee'i source:
From: http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/temporary_marriage.htm
"On page 356 in volume 1 of 'Tafseer Minhajul Sadiqeen' it is
mentioned that Muhammad [(may Peace Be Upon Him)] said: "One who
performs Mu'ta (temporary marriage) one will attain the rank of Imam
Husain; one who performs it twice will attain the rank of Imam Hasan;
one who performs it thrice will attain the rank of Ameeral Mo'mineen
(Ali r.a) and one who performs it four times will attain my rank."
So strong. Is this shee'i source referring to Mut'ah marriages or Hajj
Al-Tamatu'? Let RiDwan tell us!
We don't really know if this person is dishonest or ignorant (although
a conclusion may be reached from this person's correspondences with
our dear Brother Shibli Zaman). However, we will show the reader what
the shee'ah have to say. From a popular shee'i site, we read the
following:
From: http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/1.html
"Notice that Mut'a can be of two kinds: Mut'a of women
(pleasure/temporary marriage) and Mut'a of Pilgrimage (Hajj
al-Tamattu'). The latter is a way of performing Pilgrimage and has no
relation with the former which is one way of performing marriage."
We ask Ridwan: Were you ignorant or dishonest?
So here we see that the shee'ah understand very well that Mut'ah is an
interchangeable term that can refer to both, Hajj Al-Tamatu', and the
evil mut'ah marriage. This hadeeth simply implies that the person who
claims that Hajj Al-Tamatu' is illegal is expressing his own thoughts.
But, Mut'ah marriage was indeed prohibited before the death of the
Messenger (s).
> That means that according to Jabir there were more people other than
> himself who practiced Mut'ah during the rule of the Prophet and Abu
> Bakr too.
Leave Abu Bakr aside. Many of the hadeeths on the prohibition of
Mut'ah are related to Ali bin Abi Talib. If Umar prohibited Mut'ah by
his own will, why didn't Ali restore it during his khilaafa? Do you
have any evidence that Ali permitted Mut'ah, if I may ask? If you
don't, here's what I have:
From: http://www.islam.org.au/articles/12/TMPMRIG.HTM
# Abu Bakr Bin Hafs reported according to Ibn 'Umar who said:"When Ali
# was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him
# and said: 'O people, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) had permitted
# temporary marriage three times then forbade it. I swear by Allah,
# ready to fulfil my oath, that if I find any person who engages
in
# temporary marriage without having ratified this with a proper
# marriage, I will have him lashed 100 stripes unless he can bring
two
# witnesses to prove that the Messenger(s.a.w.) had permitted it after
# forbidding it.' " [Ibn Majah]
I guess that Sunan ibn Maaja is a reliable source for RiDwan because
his Usenet history shows that he's been using the source to prove some
of his cases as we can see below:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a7mk8t%24jm3%241%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6ota4%24i7k%241%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain
> Now there are other traditions that contradict the above saying that the
> Prophet allowed Mut'ah until prohibiting it
>
> 1.at [...]
That doesn't matter. Mut'ah was prohibited in stages just like khamr
and so on. We said this before, it's up to you to understand what we
said, reject it, or accept it.
> see again:
> [...]
> ponder on it for a while.
Saw it, pondered; Do you have anything else besides that and the one
before it that was twisted? Now go back to my post, and see how many
hadeeths are there that say Mut'ah is haraam.
> If my own mother, daughter or sister does what is allowed for her by the
> Shari'ah I have no right to be displeased and mut'ah is allowed by the
> shari'ah.
Oh, poor guy. So we hope that you, your honorable mother, daughter,
and sister will enjoy Mut'ah. But for me, no thanks. This Mut'ah thing
contradicts my sharee'ah, and it conflicts with the marriage we're
informed about in the Quran, and it also conflicts with the nature of
Islam--where we are to have some basic control on our desires and not
let our desires control us.
Before I signoff, I would like to share with the reader two articles
that show Mut'ah marriage in application and one that shows what
shee'i sources say about Mut'ah:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/tmpmrig.htm
There, you can read:
" Their 'marriage' ritual was simple. Even though they could have
sealed the contract privately, they went to a cleric in a marriage
registry office in Tehran with their photographs and identity papers."
Compare this with the beautiful sharee'ah where the condition of Zawaj
in Islam is ish-haar (announcement). And notice that RiDwan has no
problem if his daughter or sister get married without his knowledge
(Shee'a women do this in my country, in fact one of my tenets did it
and it was permissible, but she was kicked out from our building).
Also we noticed that Ridwan is bragging that Mut'ah is not
prostitution
(I agree, it's prostitution with a verbal contract), and look what
the Irani shee'ah think:
"Many Iranians regard sigheh as little more than legalized
prostitution, especially since it is an advertisement that a woman is
not a virgin. In some circles, even illicit sex is considered better
as long as it can be kept secret."
(Note: "seigheh" / Seegha marriage = Mut'ah)
The article below is by a Mut'ah victim:
http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humoud/mutaa.html
Salam,
Bubader.
Sirach
>> I asked you to explain where you got your figures from. If you can't
provide the source or back up you assertion by other means then just say
so.
>< SIGH > I have to explain the obvious now? Allright.
That "sigh" sounded convincing :). Anyway, glad your back on board.
>I did not say that EVERY MAN had ten to fifteen wife, that was a figure of
speech simply to explain that there was an abundance of sex for men,
generally, and that of course becomes even more so with wealth.
The opposite is true. If SOME men are taking between ten and fifteen wives
each then these women cannot be distributed amongst the other men.
Generally speaking therefore men will have LESS sex because a few
individuals are hogging all the women. That's a mathematical and social
FACT.
For example, there are around 30,000,000 men and 30,000,000 women in the UK
(roughly). If only 5% of the men (1,500,000) are taking 10 wives each then
that leaves only 15,000,000 women to distribute between the remaining
28,500,000 men. i.e. a shortage (and not an abundance) of sex for men
generally!
For Muhammad to permit his followers to have sexual escapades while they
were away from their wives is morally repugnant. If were moral you'd agree
with me.
rj...@mailandnews.com
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
>We ask Ridwan: Were you ignorant or dishonest?
concerning:
> Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:
> Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
>
> The Verse of Mut'ah was revealed in Allah's Book, so we performed it
> with Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Qur'an to make it
> illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But the man
> (who regarded it illegal) just expressed what his own mind suggested.
>
>
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.043
Why don't you ask the Sa'udi paid Translator that question? The hadeeth narrated by 'Imran
bin Husain is is included in the chapter of the Tafseer of the Qur'an, not Hajj. 'Imran bin
Husain (ra) did not specifically say Hajj al Tamattu'. The translator should have left both
possibilities of Mut'ah of Nisaa and Mut'ah of Hajj open and then express why he chose the
latter. That would be fair and just.
It is not absolutely clear from the context that 'Imran was only referring to Hajj al
Tamattu'. If you think I am being unreasonable see what Imam al Qurtubi says in his
tafseer, see:
http://geocities.com/aly2k1/m1.jpg
quoting Abu Bakr al Tartusi: "and no one allowed the marriage of mut'ah except 'IMRAN BIN
HUSAIN, and Ibn 'Abbas, and some Sahaba and a group from the Ahlul-Bayt (as)."
He mentions this in his commentary of 4:24 concerning the words "famastamta'tum bihinna..."
furthermore he says, quoting 'Ibn 'Umar: "The companions of Ibn 'Abbas among the people of
Makkah and Yaman ALL OF THEM, they view Mut'ah as Halaal based on the Madhhab of Ibn 'Abbas.
We can some this up by quoting Sahih Muslim:
Book 008, Number 3250:
Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him
and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'as (Tamattu' of
Hajj 1846 and Tamattu' with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the
lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and
so we did not revert to them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3250
When the companions themselves were no unanymous on whether the Prophet actually forbade
mut'ah how can you find fault with us. Jabir admits that he and others were still
practicing mut'ah even during the rule of Abu Bakr. see:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3248
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3249
Do you think they were doing Mut'ah while believing that the Prophet had prohibited it???
It is quite obvious that they didn't believe the Prophet Prohibited it and that it was 'Umar
who prohibited it.
The reason the Hajj of Tamattu' and Mut'ah of Nisaa get mixed up a lot is because 'Umar
actually prohibited these two practices at the same time.
If you are not aware of this, please see the following:
'Ali (as) says that if 'Umar didn't prohibit mut'ah no one would commit fornication except a
shaqi. The fact that Ibn 'Abbas viewed Mut'ah of Nisaa as lawful is a gleaming indication
that 'Ali saw it likewise as Ibn 'Abbas was a completely loyal desciple of 'Ali and got his
knowledge on jurisprudence directly from him. see:
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta11.jpg
salaam,
Ridwaan