Temporary marriage, Mu'ta, is a PROSTITUTION.
Submitter19
Temporary marriage is not permitted in Islam. It breaks all the beautiful
principles of man/woman relatinship as described by God in the Quran.
Some Muslims think of verse 25 of sura 4 as giving them that permission but
this would be gross misunderstanding. Here is 4:25
[4:25] Those among you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, may
marry believing slave women. GOD knows best about your belief, and you are
equal to one another, as far as belief is concerned. You shall obtain
permission from their guardians before you marry them, and pay them their due
dowry equitably. They shall maintain moral behavior, by not committing
adultery, or having secret lovers. Once they are freed through marriage, if
they commit adultery, their punishment shall be half of that for the free
women.* Marrying a slave shall be a last resort for those unable to wait. To be
patient is better for you. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
In this verse , God does not advocate temporary marriage. Temporary marriage as
it is permitted in some so called "Muslim" countries is no more than
prostitution which is strongly condemned by God in the Quran.
Marriage is a sacred relationship that follows certain Islamic rules and
egulations.
Marriage as per Quran is given at the following page:
http://www.submission.org/women/marriage.html
There are no other marriages in Quran. As we see in the Quran, marriage
involves solemn pledge. It is a serious matter not to be taken lightly.
Marriage relationship that is temporary does not have God's approval. God does
not advocate divorce, but God has in His infinite grace and mercy specified
laws for divorce. These laws of divorce are never followed in temporary
marriage (Prostitution) in definace of God and His laws in the Quran.
For ending a marriage, any marriage, one has to go through these procedures,
there are no 2 ways about this.
http://www.submission.org/women/divorce.html
gives the details of divorce per Quran.
S.A.
http://www.submission.org/women/
ALI
I hope Allah forgives you for calling one of his laws prostitution.
You (or I for that matter) may not be inclined to indulge in it or be
completely happy about the possible abuse it may lead to but maybe
some of the popular references below might help you in being less
extreme in your viewpoint in the future.
Jabir Ibn Abdullah and Salama Ibn al-Akwa' narrated: There came to us
the proclaimer of Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) and said:
"Allah's Messenger has granted you to benefit yourself (Istamta'u),
i.e., to contract temporary marriage with women."
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary
Marriage), Tradition #3246
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2,
p1022, Tradition #13, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"
In the above tradition the verb Istamta'a (to enjoy; to have pleasure)
has been used which is the exact form of the verb used in Quran in the
verse of Mut'a 4:24, and moreover, Jabir said in the above tradition
that Istamta'a means performing Mut'a of women (temporary marriage).
Similarly it is narrated that:
Salama Ibn al-Akwa' and Jabir Ibn Abdullah reported: Allah's Messenger
(May peace be upon him) came to us and permitted us to contract
temporary marriage.
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary
Marriage), Tradition #3247
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2,
p1022, Tradition #14, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"
Moreover al-Bukhari narrated from another companion of the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) the following tradition:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the
time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it
illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who
regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."
[ Note: For the above Hadith, the Saudi translator of Sahih al-Bukhari
(Muhammad Muhsin Khan) has changed the word "Mut'a" 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: ]
Sunni references:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v6, Hadith #43
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v2, p375, v6, p34
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p436 on the authority of 'Imran Ibn
al-Qasir.
As we pointed out, Mut'a can be of two kinds: Mut'a of women (pleasure
marriage) and Mut'a of Hajj (Hajj-at-Tamatu). Both were practiced at
the time of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and the early days of Umar's
rule. But they were abolished by Umar. Thus basically, the above
tradition refers to both types of Mut'a which were prohibited by Umar.
Moreover, as we gave evidences in Part I, many Sunni commentators have
put this very same tradition of Imran Ibn Husain under the commentary
of verse of Mut'a marriage (4:24) showing that this Mut'a refers to
Mut'a marriage.
It is interesting to know that in Sahih Muslim as well as in the
commentaries of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim it is mentioned that
the "man" mentioned in the above tradition ("But a man expressed what
he wished") is Umar:
"A person said according to his personal opinion, and it was Umar."
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2825
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2,
p898, Tradition #166.
Also:
"The man intended here is the Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab."
Sunni references:
Fat'h al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, v4,
p177
Sharh al-Nawawi on Sahih Muslim, v3, p364, Dar al-Sha'ab print
The reason that in the original tradition, Imran Ibn Husain did not
mention the name of Umar is that he was mindful of the bad temper of
Umar, and because Umar said he will stone anyone who does that.
It is also narrated in Sahih Muslim that:
Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas commanded to do Mut'a while Ibn Zubair
forbade to do it. I mentioned this to Jabir Ibn Abdillah and he said:
It is through me that this Hadith has been circulated. We did Mut'a
(of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar
was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for
his Messenger whatever He liked and as He liked. And its command was
revealed in Quran. Thus accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah
has commanded you, and confirm (by reverting to permanent marriage)
the marriages of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And
any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration
(i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him.
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter CDXLII, Tradition #2801
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2,
p885, Tradition #145.
Again the above tradition has references to both Mut'a, and Umar said
that Allah made permissible what he wished at the time of the Prophet
and its corresponding command was revealed in Quran, yet he will stone
any one who contracts the fixed-term marriage.
Also, both al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated the following tradition from
Abdullah Ibn Masud who was another companion of the Prophet:
Narrated 'Abdullah Ibn Masud:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and
we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves
castrated?" He forbade us (to castrate ourselves) and then allowed us
to marry women with a temporary contract (Mut'a) and recited to us:
'O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has
made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)
Sunni references:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, v7, Tradition #13a
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic, v6, p11, under Tafsir of verse 5:87 of Quran
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2,
p1022, Tradition #11, "Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary
Marriage), Tradition #3243
if you want reference to more Sunni sources about the validity of
mutah as being halal then please ask and I will gladly supply them to
you.
ALI
submi...@cs.com (Submitter19) wrote in message news:<aj5u0b$7uu$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
Tom E.
news:aj5u0b$7uu$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Salaamun Alaykum
>
> Temporary marriage is not permitted in Islam. It breaks all the beautiful
> principles of man/woman relatinship as described by God in the Quran.
Yes, but is every man guaranteed a wife in Islamic societies? How
easy is it to get a wife in Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?
What if you are not of high standing, or don't have a lot of dowry
to pay? I heard somewhere that homosexuality was/is rampant
down at camp X ray, which leads me to believe that getting a woman
in the lands they came from has been next to impossible (for centuries).
Also, if women and slaves are essentially "bought" for marriage
purposes, how does this equal "beautiful principles of man/woman
relationship"? Isn't Islam just treating women as sexual chattel?
How is this different (or better) than the Shia's "wife for an hour"?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Salams.
>
> I hope Allah forgives you for calling one of his laws prostitution.
>
Muta is nothing but prostitution there is no difference whether you
decide to give it a religious terminology. Whether one goes to a
prostitute to satisfy his sexual lust, or some other lady not called a
'prostitute', it is the same act. You will find absolutely no support
for the issue of muta in the QURAN.
>
> In the above tradition the verb Istamta'a (to enjoy; to have pleasure)
> has been used which is the exact form of the verb used in Quran in the
> verse of Mut'a 4:24, and moreover, Jabir said in the above tradition
> that Istamta'a means performing Mut'a of women (temporary marriage).
>
This is wrong. The basis of this argument rests on the fact that
istamta'a is derived from the same root as the word muta, "m-t-a".
Anyone with any basic understanding of language would realize that the
etymology of various words coming from the same root does not denote
that the words mean the same thing. The actual meaning of the verb
form according to the Arabic dictionaries, including Al-Mawrid, is
this:
"to enjoy; to savor; relish; get pleasure from; to take pleasure or
satisfaction or delight in; to have for one's use or benefit; have the
use or benefit of".
Thus, it is well established that the word is not used in the sense of
muta, but:
"... other women are lawful for you, provided you seek them with your
wealth (i.e., dowry), .... So for the enjoyment/pleasure you have
already had from them give them their dowry, as a duty. And there is
no sin for you in what you mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry)
after fulfilling the duty."
The verse is directed to the issue of dowry and not muta. What is
being stated is that even if a man has had sexual relations with his
wife for a long time, and has not payed the mehr, than the husbands
still must consider it a binding obligation on them to pay it
irrespective of the amount of times they have had intercourse with
their wives. Thus the verse is talking about mehr and not temporary
marriage.
The final statement is regarding the issue of whether the woman
desires to forgo the mehr, and that is stated in the Quran in another
verse:
Give the women their dowry as a gift; but if they choose to make over
to you a part of it, you may regard it as lawfully yours. (4: 4)
If one wants to find support from muta, he will not find it in the
Quraan. Further, the Quran has given harsh pronouncements to issues
relating to divorce and has stipulated a 3 'talaq' pronouncement
separated by a period of months. This is primarily so that man would
not be hasty in his decision and may rectify the marriage
relationship. Marriage is viewed very highly in Islam and is the
foundation of the social set-up. To assume that the Quran has allowed
muta is in diorect violation of its spirit.
And yes, this means the 'historical reports' in the hadeeth books need
to be reexamined.
David / Amicus
countries where they marry a young girl via mu'ta and pay her parents a
large (relatively speaking) dowry. Afterwards since the girl is no
longer a virgin no one will marry her; often then she goes into the
larger cities and becomes a prostitute. SHAMEFULL!!!!
Muhammad held women in such high regard and respect that I can not
believe that he would permit such a heinous thing as temporary marriage!
rj...@mailandnews.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Muta is nothing but prostitution there is no difference whether you
> decide to give it a religious terminology.
salaam 'alaykum,
It always surprises me that some muslims call Mut'ah prostitution while they know that
the Prophet (sawa) actually did allow Mut'ah! Brother Ali already provided the
references for that from Bukhari and Muslim.
Are you saying that the Prophet allowed prostitution?
Yes there is difference of opinion among Islamic schools whether Mut'ah was prohibited
after it was made allowed but the fact remains that the Prophet did allow Mut'ah.
Whether he or 'Umar eventually prohibited it is another issue.
Once my sociology professor proposed that Marriage is nothing but prostitution as a man
is basically exchanging a promise of financial responsibility in exchange for sex.
That was an interesting classroom debate.
So if you want to insist that Mut'ah is prostitution first you will have to tell me why
so called "permanant marriage" is not prostitution and why "temporary marriage" is
prostitution.
"Permanant Marriage" is not really permanent in Islam as Islam allows something called
Divorce also. It is very possible for a man to marry a woman and divorce her an hour,
a week or a month after that, right?
The difference between "Permanant Marriage" and "Temporary Marriage" is that both
parties are aware and agree that after a fixed period of time the marriage will
expire. Of course renewal of marriage contract is always possible.
So which is better for a woman?
1.A man proposes to a woman and has intentions to possibly divorce her in a year
because he will have to leave the country after finishing his studies, for example, but
he doesn't tell her of his intention.
2.A man proposes to a woman and clearly and openly tells the woman that the marriage
will be over after a year because he will return to his country after a year.
Which is better?
If you answer no.1 I know you are being biased. Clearly no.2 is better for a woman.
It is an honest approach and a woman can decide for herself whether she would like to
go through with such more likely to be temporary arrangement.
Next, in Islam a woman has no power to divorce her husband. If she is not happy with
her marriage she can request her husband to divorce her but if he refuses and he is not
violating any Islamic responsibility towards his wife the woman is basically stuck for
life!
At least in a marriage whose time is fixed she has the freedom to refuse a renewal of
the marriage contract and get out of an unpleasant marriage relationship without all
the red tape.
Basically the only difference between "Permanant Marriage" and "Temporary Marriage" in
Islam is that in Permanant Marriage a dowry is fixed while in Temporary Marriage both a
dowry and Term of time is fixed.
Both marriages have a required waiting period before remarrying in the case that the
"Permanant Marriage" ends in divorce.
This is a common misconception that people have about temporary marriage.
After a temporary marriage is over a woman can NOT remarry until the 'iddah (waiting
period) is complete, basically about 2 months!
She can not have sex with someone else the next night like a prostitute does. She has
to wait 2 months before she can enter into a another marriage.
Mut'ah is not like prostitution. Would the Prophet Muhammad allow woman to be
prostituted even for a single moment in his life? The fact is that he did allow
Mut'ah.
Even the Qur'an has a verse about Mut'ah's legislation.
see http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/ chapter 4
Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law
Sachiko Murata
here is an excerpt:
In the sura entitled 'Women', after listing those women to whom marriage is forbidden,
the Qur'an states as follows: 'Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may
seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. So those of them whom you
enjoy, give them their appointed wages; it is no fault in you in agreeing together,
after the due apportionate. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise' (4:24). All Shi'i ulama' and
some Sunni ulama' hold that this verse-especially the words: 'Such wives as you enjoy
(istamta'tum)'-refers to the permissibility of mut'a. The Shi'is present several
arguments to prove this point. [1]
This verse was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet's stay in Medina, which
lasted from AH 1/CE 622 to 10/632. At that time the men of Medina used to 'seek
enjoyment' from women for a limited period of time in exchange for a specified sum of
money. By its revelation this verse in effect confirmed an existing situation; and it
emphasized that men must fulfill their promises concerning the agreed upon sum. In
Medina this custom was looked upon as one kind of temporary marriage and was referred
to by the term istimta', the same word employed in the Qur'anic verse-even though the
literal meaning of the word is 'to seek benefit' or 'to take enjoyment'. Hence the
meaning of the Qur'anic verse must be understood in terms of the conventional usage of
the time, for as is well known in the science of Qur'anic commentary and Islamic
jurisprudence, the Qur'an follows the conventional usage of the people in all statutes
and legal prescriptions. If someone wants to understand a word in the Qur'an in other
than the conventional meaning of the time, he must supply a strong reason for doing so.
The context of the verse also indicates that it is referring to temporary marriage.
also see the excellent article by Sharaf al Deen al Musawi at:
http://www.al-islam.org/masail/ chapter Four Again.
Woman And Her Rights chapter 10 at:
http://www.al-islam.org/WomanRights/index.html
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/ chapter 6a
After that if anyone still insists that Mut'ah is prostitution, imho i think that
person is clearly ignorant; either that or a intolerant sectarian narrow-minded one.
salaam,
Ridwaan
Abdullah
It must be a very good thing because Bin Baz and similar scholars
tried to legitimize it through other ways, for example "Marriage with
the intention of divorce":
Submitter19
http://www.binbaz.org.sa/last_resault.asp?hID=323>>
Anything that goes against God's laws are not good but EVIL. We have the Quran
and have peole lke Bin Baz, then we have the choice beween God's law in the
Quran or Bin Baz law who issues fatwa on demand for the Saudi royals to allow
them to marry as many women as they wish.
Bin Baz or other scholars cannot change God's laws by their opinions. I read
his fatwa, and it sounds like that, drinking alcohol is haram but if you drink
beer with the intention not to get drunk is not haram. So, he says, Mu'ta
marriage is haram but marriage with the intetnion to divorce is not haram.
This is the corruption of religion that no one in his complete mind can accept.
Bin Baz was also the same person who made that fatwa around 1975/1395 that the
the earth is standing still and the sun is the one that moves areound it. This
after the Americans already landed on the moon.
His fatwa states; If the earth is rotating as they claim ,the countries, the
mountains, the trees, the rivers and the oceans will have no bottom and the
people will see the eastern countries move to the west and the western
countries move to the east.
After this fatwa, NO ONE can accept this man'sfatwa or use his words to mean
anything of value.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Medina this custom was looked upon as one kind of temporary marriage and was referred
> to by the term istimta', the same word employed in the Qur'anic verse-even though the
> literal meaning of the word is 'to seek benefit' or 'to take enjoyment'.
As demonstrated earlier, the verse and particularly the word in
discussion revolves aroung the issue of mehr. Now our frined wants us
to merely accept the fact that the word istimta was used in reference
to the dealing of muta.
The word is not the verb form of muta and there is no usage of the
word muta in the Quran, and there is no usage of the word muta in
pre-Islamic Arabia and the conventional usage is the word "to seek
benefit' or to 'take enjoyment from' as stated before.
Hence the
> meaning of the Qur'anic verse must be understood in terms of the conventional usage of
> the time,
Now our friend wants to argue that this is the conventional usage of
the word muta, but he has not provided the proof for it. If it was so
conventional one could find it, but there is none. So for all our
friends on here please show us an example of this conventional usage
of the word istimta other than the meaning "to take pleasure from".
Thank you very much and I don't want any side-tracking but examples of
'conventional usage'.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> some Sunni ulama' hold that this verse-especially the words: 'Such wives as you enjoy
> (istamta'tum)'-refers to the permissibility of mut'a.
Yopu can continue to argue what you want but no Arabic dictionary in
the world says the particular verb refers to muta. So the choice is
not upto me, it is upto you whether you want,to follow the opinions of
men, or the opinions of the Quraan.
Yes, muta is prostitution and whether you want to give it a religious
terminology or not, it is the same thing.
Abdullah
Salam,
> So, he says, Mu'ta
> marriage is haram but marriage with the intetnion to divorce is not haram.
>
> This is the corruption of religion that no one in his complete mind can accept.
I'm not a wahhabi and therefore do not consider Bin Baz to be a
religious authority. You must have missed that my intention of showing
this post is exactly what you wrote, "Mu'ta marriage is haram but
marriage with the intetnion to divorce is not haram.", namely to show
the hypocrisy in his rulings.
As for taking the Qur'an or not, I take my interpretation from the one
who grew up in the House of Wahhy, with the Rasul (s) as his teacher,
Fatima (as) his mate, and Hasan (as) and Hussayn (as) his children.
Submitter19
<<.......I take my interpretation from the one
who grew up in the House of Wahhy, with the Rasul (s) as his teacher,
Fatima (as) his mate, and Hasan (as) and Hussayn (as) his children.>>
Ali is dead and so is Muhammed. Neither one was meant to interpret the Quran
for the generations to come.
Ali did not know about the earth being in continuos motion around the sun for
example. He did not know where the sun goes when it sets. He did not know where
is the moon and where it comes from. He did not know about TV, Computers,
aeroplanes....etc Ali lived and died and his understanding is limited by the
knowledge of his time.
Quran is a dynamic book, not a static book that freezes itself at the era of
Ali or Muhammad.
God teaches us in the Qura that HE is the TEACHER of the Quran 555:1-2, not Ali
and that HE (GOD) is the one to explain it NOT Ali.
[75:16] Do not move your tongue to hasten it.
[75:17] It is we who will collect it into Quran.
[75:18] Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran.
[75:19] Then it is we who will explain it.
S.A.
http://www.islam-submission.org/
Submitter19
I would ike to hear an answer from those who believe in Mu'ta marriage
Would you give your daughter, your sister or your mother (if widowed or
divorced) to a total stranger or your neighbor to marry her for three hours and
pay you 500 dollars ?
If the answer is yes. What is the difference between this and prostitution,?
S.A.
http://www.islam-submission.org/
ALI
> Abdullah wrote,
>
> <<.......I take my interpretation from the one
> who grew up in the House of Wahhy, with the Rasul (s) as his teacher,
> Fatima (as) his mate, and Hasan (as) and Hussayn (as) his children.>>
I think you'll find taking an interpretation of the Quran from the
household of the Prophet (S) is generally viewd as a quite acceptable.
Most of the worlds muslims rely upon interpretations of the Word from
one source or another.
> Ali is dead and so is Muhammed. Neither one was meant to interpret the Quran
> for the generations to come.
Thank you for stating the obvious.
If you think about though, maybe Ali is alive and receiving sustenance
>from Allah, seeing as he was martyred by the sword of an enemy of
Islam in the mosque at Kufa. Unless of course you've 'interpreted'
the Quran differently to everyone else and consider 'shaheed' as dead.
> Ali did not know about the earth being in continuos motion around the sun for
> example. He did not know where the sun goes when it sets. He did not know where
> is the moon and where it comes from. He did not know about TV, Computers,
> aeroplanes....etc Ali lived and died and his understanding is limited by the
> knowledge of his time.
Huh? On which occasion was Ali asked about the motion of the Earth?
Please provide a reference for this claim. As for him not knowing
about TV and computers, what does that prove one way or another?
Let me ask you a question; You belong to a sect called 'submitters',
what does your sect/leader/belief state about what life will be like
on Earth in 100 years from now? Don't know? Then you and whatever it
is you believe in are also limited by the knowledge of this time. If
you say you do know exactly what life will be like a 100 years from
now then please share this information with us, I'd love to know.
> Quran is a dynamic book, not a static book that freezes itself at the era of
> Ali or Muhammad.
Who doubted this? Cetainly the poster you responded to didn't!
ALI
rj...@mailandnews.com
Out of all people your sect, the submitters believe in following the Qur'an only.
Yet you know very well that Mut'ah is made permissible in the Qur'an in 4:24 yet
you still oppose Mut'ah and call it prostitution?
This while you know that Allah has prohibited prostitution and has permitted
Mut'ah!
Don't you have any fear of Allah? What is wrong with you?
After mentioning the laws of conventional marriage and of what the right hand
possesses, Allah says:
wa UHILLA lakum maa waraa a dhaalikum an tabtaghuu bi amwaalikum muHSineen ghayra
MusaafiHeen FAMASTAMTA'TUM BIHI minhunna fa aatuuhunna ujuurahunna fareeDhah.
Lawful unto you are ALL BEYOND THOSE MENTIONED, so that ye seek them with your
wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek Mut'ah, give
unto them their portions as a duty.
To know what the meaning of Istimtaa'a is in the context of marriage one must look
at the meaning of the word in the arabic language as used at the time of the
revelation of the Qur'an.
There is ample evidence that Istimtaa'a means temporary marriage. here is an
example:
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta9.jpg
i know you submitters reject all prophetic traditions, which is an obvious folly
which i shall address later, but common sense dictates that to understand the
Qur'anic Arabic one must study the exact meaning of Arabic words as understood by
the people of the time when the Qur'an was revealed as all languages evolved and
some words change in meaning over time. The above muta9.jpg is enough to establish
that istimtaa'a meant Mut'ah Marriage at the time of the revelation of 4:24 in the
marriage context.
also at http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/ there are images muta1.jpg to
muta11.jpg, even though you reject all prophetic traditions you will probably find
it useful from the historic prospective. It proves that Mut'ah was practices by
the companions of the Prophet all the way through half the rule of 'Umar al
Khattab! Suddenly 'Umar prohibited it.
I already posted the difference between prostitution and marriage be it temporary
or "permanent".
in both permanent and temporary marriage a woman has to wait at least 2 or 3 months
before she can contract a new relation with a man.
in prostitution a woman may have intercourse with several men in a single day or
night and she may do the same the following day without any waiting period
('iddah). I hope you know what an 'iddah is.
'Iddah is a waiting period basically to establish whether the woman is pregnant,
except that a widowed woman has an 'iddah of 4months and 10 days before she may
remarry, for example.
Now to answer your other question.
You know VERY well that it is possible in Islam for a man to marry a woman in
"permanent marriage" , give a dowery of 500 dollars and divorce her 3 hours latter.
The difference between "permanent" marriage and fixed-term/Mut'ah marriage is that
the woman is told in fixed-term/Mut'ah marriage of the intended length of the
marriage contract while in "permanent" marriage no specific length of time is
specified.
A man can have a "permanent" marriage with a woman and divorce her 3 hours later
and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it.
I have already shown that 4:24 allows Mut'ah.
wa UHILLA lakum maa waraa a dhaalikum an tabtaghuu bi amwaalikum muHSineen ghayra
MusaafiHeen FAMASTAMTA'TUM BIHI minhunna fa aatuuhunna ujuurahunna fareeDhah.
Lawful unto you are ALL BEYOND THOSE MENTIONED ( maa waraa a dhaalikum), so that ye
seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye
seek Mut'ah, give unto them their portions as a duty.
A muslim has no right to be displeased with what Allah has made Lawful.
Allah has made Mut'ah lawful in 4:24
I as a muslim have no right to be displeased if any man or woman does anything
which is Lawful for them by the words of God in 4:24 and saying of the Messenger
of Allah, be it my own mother or father or sister or brother or son of daughter.
Who am I to be opposed to what Allah has allowed???
Ridwaan
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> wa UHILLA lakum maa waraa a dhaalikum an tabtaghuu bi amwaalikum muHSineen ghayra
> MusaafiHeen FAMASTAMTA'TUM BIHI minhunna fa aatuuhunna ujuurahunna fareeDhah.
> Lawful unto you are ALL BEYOND THOSE MENTIONED ( maa waraa a dhaalikum), so that ye
> seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye
> seek Mut'ah, give unto them their portions as a duty.
>
> A muslim has no right to be displeased with what Allah has made Lawful.
>
> Allah has made Mut'ah lawful in 4:24
>
Now he is corrupting the explicit text of the Quran to suit his own
whims. Look at his translation:
"And those of whom yo seek mutah, give unto then their portons of
duty." If we ask Jaffer where the word muta appears in the Arabic, he
will have absolutely no answer whatsoever because he has transgressed
upon the Quran for his sect by inserting a word that is not even
there. I asked him which Arabic dictionary in the world ever
translated famastamta'tum as muta, and he has not given an answer. In
fact, he quoted a person who himself acknowledged the meaning as
"enjoying the pleasure' of, but this same person went on about
conventional usage without any support from language whatsoever to
defend the act of prostitution.
Once again, the more correct translation is:
So for the enjoyment/pleasure you have already had from them give them
their dowry, as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you
mutually agree upon (regarding the dowry) after fulfilling the duty.
The Quran is saying that even if a Muslim has slept with his wife and
enjoyed her even for a long period of time, he is not to think that it
is still not binding on him to pay the mehr. It is his obligation to
pay it, unless the couple both mutually agree to midfy the contarct of
marriage.
This is confirmed in the Quran in surah Baqarah also:
Give the women their dowry as a gift; but if they choose to make over
to you a part of it, you may regard it as lawfully yours. (4: 4)
Notice that the verse says that the mehr is the woman's legal right,
and the man has absolutely no right to it, unless the women chooses to
revoke a porition or all of it for that matter.
As far as whom is lawful, the Quran is referring to what it stated in
the previous verse.
22. And marry not women whom your fathers married,- except what is
past: It was shameful and odious,- an abominable custom indeed.
23. Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters,
sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters,
sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck),
foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your
guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no
prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of
your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at
one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is
Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom
your right hands possess:
The context of the verses have nothing to do with mutah, in fact the
context of the verses have to do with the injucntions of marriage and
the rights of the women in marriage. The Quran further, after
discussing the issue of marriage in general, refers to marrying former
slaves. The Quran makes another injucntion concerning the issue of
mehr and considers it so important that even the slave girls whom one
decides to marry must be paid mehr. And this is especially
significant considering how much slavery had permeated Arabian
society.
And Jaffer has not showed how 4:24 refers to muta, but he has shown
how stubborn he is in defending his own sectarian bias, and he cannot
rise above it. Thus, in one article he will argue about how Bukhari
and Muslim is corrupt and full of baseless hadeeth, such as the vision
of God, and in the next moment will proclaim how authentic it is, if
it comes to his own pre-conceived beliefs such as muta.
The Quran is furqaan and it does not view marriage so lightly.
rj...@mailandnews.com
> Now he is corrupting the explicit text of the Quran to suit his own
> whims. Look at his translation:
>
> "And those of whom yo seek mutah, give unto then their portons of
> duty." If we ask Jaffer where the word muta appears in the Arabic, he
> will have absolutely no answer
salaam 'alaykum Asim,
I don't know how good your Arabic is. I already clarified this issue by quoting the
following hadeeth as recorded in both Bukhari and Muslim:
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta9.jpg
it says "Innahu qad adhina lakum an TASTAMTI'UU FASTAMTI'UU".
I hope you can see that the word Tastamti'uu in the hadeeth is the accusative of the
same exact word used in 4:24 which is Istamta'tum which is the 2nd person plural of
Istamta'a. Both are form X (baab al 'istif'aal) of Ma Ta 'A.
In the principles of Tafseer it is universally acknowledged that the words in the Qur'an
in the legislative category must maintain the same meanings as understood by the people
in the Prophet's time, during the time of the revelation.
It is clear that Istimtaa' in both the hadeeth and the verse 4.24 are used in the exact
same sense.
I have already expained why Mut'ah is not equivalent to prostitution as in Mut'ah there
is an obligatory 'iddah.
The same is the case with Nikah al Imaa. Do you know what Nikah al Amah is? In the
Nikah al Amah it is not called 'iddah but Istibraa.
For arguments sake if you want to call nikaah prostitution then the Nikah al Amah
resembles Prostitution much much more.
I hope I don't have to quote classic works of Fiqh for you on this one. I didn't want to
bring this one up but you left me no choice.
Don't you know that a Slave owner, in Sunni Fiqh can literally rent out his slave girls
to others for a specific time period? This does not even require the permission of the
Slavegirl. Again Istibraa is required before he rents out his slave girl to another
person after he takes her back from him.
So the question is what logic can you use to call Mut'ah prostitution but Nikah al Imaa
non-prostitution?
Lastly you know that the Prophet allowed Mut'ah. There is disagreement between the
Shi'is and Sunnis whether the Prophet ever abrogated its permissibility but it is well
known that the companions practiced Mut'ah in the lifetime of the Prophet as well as
during the rule of Abu Bakr and half the rule of 'Umar!
Are you saying that the companions partook in prostitution until the time of 'Umar. Are
you saying that the Prophet allowed his companions to partake in prostitution, even if
for a short period of time???
I hope you will now drop the subject.
Why don't you simply practice some religious tolerance and respect our Ja'fari School of
Fiqh as we respect your 4 Madhhabs?
Why must you get so nasty and use abusive and harsh words towards me?
I suggest we cool off and regroup out intentions.
If our intentions in discussing this matter is to seek the pleasure of Allah by
increasing our knowledge etc, we must keep our dialog respectful.
salaam,
Ridwaan
asimm...@yahoo.com
> same sense.
>
There is no usage of the word 'istimtaa' in the hadeeth. I asked you
not for ther word 'muta', I asked you for the usage of the word
istimtaa. This is a plain and simple question and you keep running
around it. We already know that it is clear from 4.24 that the issue
of discussion is MEHR and has absolutely nothing to do with muta.
I did not ask you for the word muta, and there is no single Arabic
dictionary or book of usage of Arabic that says istimtaa is a form of
muta. Now once again, provide for me any Arabic source on language,
that includes conventional usage for the word muta.
>
> I hope I don't have to quote classic works of Fiqh for you on this one. I didn't want to
> bring this one up but you left me no choice.
>
I do not care for your alleged classical fiqh books. We are talking
about the issue of language and the usage of the word istimtaa, which
we all know means "to seek pleasure from". Now once again, please
quote me a LANGUAGE source that says istimtaa in conventional usage
refers to muta.
> Don't you know that a Slave owner, in Sunni Fiqh can literally rent out his slave girls
> to others for a specific time period? This does not even require the permission of the
> Slavegirl. Again Istibraa is required before he rents out his slave girl to another
> person after he takes her back from him.
>
The Quran had specifically allowed slave-girls and the Quran has
specifically, in numerous verses, given detailed regulations for
dealing with slave-girls. But, lo and behold, we find absolutely no
regulations regarding muta. So please do not try and pass of muta
with the issue of slave-girls.
Slavery, and the status of a slae-girl, is totally unrelated to the
issue of muta.
> Lastly you know that the Prophet allowed Mut'ah. There is disagreement between the
> Shi'is and Sunnis whether the Prophet ever abrogated its permissibility but it is well
> known that the companions practiced Mut'ah in the lifetime of the Prophet as well as
> during the rule of Abu Bakr and half the rule of 'Umar!
>
Like I said before, the Quraan is the furqaan and we measure what is
truth by the Quran. That is why I said explciitly before, you will
find no evidence for muta from the Quraan and this means the
tradition, i.e. narrations, have to be reexamined. So once again,
please provide me the conventional usage of the word istimtaa as muta
>from any Arabic source.
So, like I said before, one will not find any support for muta FROM
THE QURAN. And whether you give it religious terminology or not, it
is still prostitution.
Submitter19
it a prostitution.
BUT, he cannot support his opinion by the Quran. therefore goes to Hadiths
books to find a glimpse of any thing that helps him.
Ridwaan and others who claim temporary marriage is OK never said straight
forward if they would give their daughters, sisters or mothers (if divorced or
widowed) to a total stranger for some dollars to marry them amd enjoy them for
a part of an hour or few hours, then divorce them ?.
AND if this is not a PROSTITUTION ? what is it ??!!.
Quran sets marriage as a high priority institution and gives rules and
regulations and even goes into more details in the issue of divorce.
http://www.submission.org/women/marriage.html
http://www.submission.org/women/divorce.html
Some claims here you can marry a woman for few hours then divorce her.
This is totally incorrect and shameful as Quran sets the rules clearly and the
first one is to do your best to keep the marriage, not to break it even if you
have to get someone from both families to resolve the issues at hand, then
waiting four months (NOT four hours) to think about it.
What we see is what I have been saying, it is the corruption of Islam at its
worst with people inventing laws from books other than the Quran, contradict
the Quran and show the Muslims as animals looking after personal pleasure
above having a family and settlement in emotional and social life as Quran
teaches..
then we wonder why the Muslims are defeated every where ? this is one of them,
inventing laws that has nothing to do with God's laws in the Quran.
[30:21]. Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among
yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and
He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are
sufficient proofs for people who think.
What kind of tranquility is there in that few hours (or half an hour) marraiges
for the woman ? and what kind of rights she gets after divorce ?
Unless the woamn is a prostitution and her guardian is a.....? she and he
would NOT care.
BUT God cares.
[68:36] What is wrong with your logic?
[68:37] Do you have another book to uphold?
[68:38] In it, do you find anything you want?
rj...@mailandnews.com
> > It is clear that Istimtaa' in both the hadeeth and the verse 4.24 are used in the exact
> > same sense.
> >
>
> There is no usage of the word 'istimtaa' in the hadeeth.
salaam 'alaykum,
you have got to be kidding. here is the hadeeth again as recorded in both Bukhari and Muslim:
http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/muta9.jpg
if for some reason your browser gives an error go to http://www.geocities.com/nasirulmahdi/ and
scroll down to muta9.jpg
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa':
While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, "You have been allowed to do the
Mut'a (marriage), so do it."
Go look up the Arabic Text and you will see it:
Kunnaa fii jaysh fa ataanaa rasuulu rasuulillah (sawa) faqaala inna qad adhina lakum an
TASTAMTI'UU FASTAMTI'UU.
If you are not proficient enough in Arabic to see that both the words in 4:24 of the Qur'an
"Itamta'tum" and the one in Bukhari and Muslim "tastamti'uu" are different conjugations of the
same exact Arabic word, I can't help you!
you have: istamta'a in the past tense, yastamti'u in the present, itstamti' in the command.
Even Imam Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim adds, "Ya'ni Mut'atan nisaa".
This is getting too redundant here.
as far as whether the Prophet forbade it after its permissibility here is an excerpt from the
Shi'ah Encyclopedia which shows why it is problematic:
There are few traditions which claim that the Prophet forbade Mut'a. There are however many
contradictions among these reports. Let us look at the following traditions which alleged that
the temporary marriage was forbidden FOREVER in the battle of Khaibar (1/7 AH). We will discuss
what types of problems these traditions have shortly.
Muhammad Ibn Ali narrated on the authority of his father Ali that Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) on the Day of Khaibar prohibited for ever the contracting of temporary marriage and
eating of the flesh of the domestic asses.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage),
Tradition #3265
also:
Ali (may peace be upon him) heard that Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) gave some
relaxation in connection of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Don't be hasty (in your
religious verdict), Ibn Abbas, for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the day of
Khaibar prohibited for ever the doing of it and eating of the flesh of domestic asses.
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage),
Tradition #3266
Surprisingly, the following traditions claim that, long after the battle of Khaibar, the
Prophet ORDERED to do Mut'a when he Captured Mecca (9/8 AH) but he allegedly forbade it when
they left Mecca:
Sabra al-Juhanni narrated: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to contract
temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did not come out of it
(Mecca) till he forbade us.
[Note: The Saudi-paid translator has used "permitted" instead of "ordered". This while the
Arabic text of the Hadith uses "ordered". This shows that the Prophet not only allowed Mut'a,
but also promoted it in Mecca.]
Sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, English version, v2, chapter DXLI (titled: Temporary Marriage), Tradition #3257
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, p1025, Tradition #22,
"Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Nikah al-Mut'a"
also:
Sabra narrated: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered his companions to contract
temporary marriage in the Year of Victory... (then I made Mut'a) and I remained with her for
three (nights), and then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to part with
them.
[Note: Again the Saudi-paid translator has used "permitted" instead of "ordered" while the
Arabic text of the Hadith uses "ordered":]
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/4.html
If the Prophet has forbidden the temporary marriage FOREVER in the Day of Khaibar (1/7 AH), why
it was practiced even after the battle of Hunain (after 10/8 AH) with the direct order of the
Prophet? (See the reference above) In other words:
How is that possible that one is forbidden FOREVER and in two different points of time, in the
Day of Khaibar (1/7 AH) and on the victory Mecca (9/8 AH) FOREVER, and people were practicing
it between these two instants of time and after these two instances with the order of the
Prophet? In the mentioned tradition about the battle of Hunain, it is said that the messenger
of Allah ALLOWED to do Mut'a for after the battle of Hunain. So we can not say people did it
because they did not know it was forbidden forever. The traditions confirms that Mut'a was done
with the direct order of the Prophet. So how can we justify these few alleged traditions that
the Prophet forbade it forever before that?
salaam,
Ridwaan
Omar
Assalamu alaikum Ridwan,
> Lastly you know that the Prophet allowed Mut'ah.
Everyone knows this and this makes it even more astonishing to hear
people accuse those who accept the legality of Mut'ah of being pimps.
> it is well known that the companions practiced Mut'ah in the lifetime of the
> Prophet as well as during the rule of Abu Bakr and half the rule of 'Umar!
This is true and anyone who can put two and two together must admit
that a disagreement among the Companions is a disagreement among the
Sunnis. Ibn Abbas was among those who never believed assertions that
the Prophet, upon whom be peace, had prohibited Mut'ah.
The disagreement of the Companions cannot be resolved by the agreement
of scholars of a later age to impose whatever standards they please
upon the law.
It may be possible for a ruler to prohibit Mut'ah, for whatever
reason, but such a legal sanction would only be temporary and would
not its fundamental legality in Shariah law.
Similarly, the fatawa of later scholars is not binding on anyone, not
even upon themselves. Anyone could cite the Companions as an authority
that superceeds them.
> Are you saying that the companions partook in prostitution until the time of
> 'Umar. Are you saying that the Prophet allowed his companions to partake in
> prostitution, even if for a short period of time???
>
> I hope you will now drop the subject.
Mut'ah is one of the favorite tirades of anti-Shia sectarians. It is
normally introduced in order to attack Shias and draw them into public
confrontations.
The most critical could be said about it is that the Jafari scholars'
interpretation of Mut'ah is unsound, or that it has become, over the
course of time, some kind of ruse. Most interested sectarian trolls do
not have sufficent knowledge of Jafari fiqh to address these issues so
they say foolish and offensive things like, "Mut'ah is just
prostitution".
The underlying issue is whether a marriage contract may or may not
contain a time clause. Why a marriage should be set to expire is
irrelevant. Occasional Jafari assertions that Mut'ah is an act of
worship or something that every Muslim must engage in at least once
are also irrelevant.
> salaam,
> Ridwaan
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
ALI
> Ridwaan wrote in defense of Temporary marriage , which the Quran would consider
> it a prostitution.
Please point out to me the EXACT place in the Koran which states that
temporary marriage is prostitution.
> BUT, he cannot support his opinion by the Quran. therefore goes to Hadiths
> books to find a glimpse of any thing that helps him.
Please point out to me in the Koran where it is explicitly stated,
without ANY ambiguity, the number of times a muslim should pray each
day, the wording of the azaan or the shahada or the exact
sequence/routine for performing ablutions. I would like to see clear,
exact details.
> Ridwaan and others who claim temporary marriage is OK never said straight
> forward if they would give their daughters, sisters or mothers (if divorced or
> widowed) to a total stranger for some dollars to marry them amd enjoy them for
> a part of an hour or few hours, then divorce them ?.
You are very one-dimensional in your perception of where or how mutah
may be used. What if I were away from home for a prolonged period and
needed for a lady to help me cook/clean for me in my temporary abode?
Islamically speaking, a lady that I am eligible to be married to can't
be in the house with me alone. If I contracted mutah it would be
permissible. Mutah without intimacy can be stipulated at the outset
in case you didn't know.
Or, if there were a woman who had children but no husband or extended
family and I were lucky enough to be able to provide for her and her
children, both financially and as a fatherly influence for her
children.
But my wife preferred that I didn't engage in permanent marriage,
instead a fixed term, non-sexual relationship that may be renewed
whilst I am able to afford them this help? How is this un-Islamic or
akin to prostitution?
It's funny that you write about marrying your daughter or sister to a
man 'for a few hours'. Do you have a cast-iron guarantee that all
permanent marriages in Islamic societies carry on forever?
I live in the UK where there are so many instances of parents marrying
off their daughters at an early age to 'protect her dignity and
honour' to totally unsuitable men, who within a short time go chasing
after other women or divorce their wives on the flimsiest of pretexts.
What is 'permanent' about that, and how has the daughters dignity and
honour been kept intact?
> AND if this is not a PROSTITUTION ? what is it ??!!.
This is NOT prostitution, this is Islam as condoned by the Holy
Prophet(S) and practised by a number of his companions.
> Quran sets marriage as a high priority institution and gives rules and
> regulations and even goes into more details in the issue of divorce.
And who disputed this in the first place?
> Some claims here you can marry a woman for few hours then divorce her.
Huh? Unless you've been living in a vacuum (or an ideal muslim
community shut off from the rest of the world) you couldn't have
failed to notice that the above is happening all around us in
'permanent' marriages? Why is such a terrible thing that 'divorce'
happens in mutah but OK when it happens in a 'permanent' marriage?
> This is totally incorrect and shameful as Quran sets the rules clearly and the
> first one is to do your best to keep the marriage, not to break it even if you
> have to get someone from both families to resolve the issues at hand, then
> waiting four months (NOT four hours) to think about it.
Please point me to exactly where in the Koran the above words are
written.
> What we see is what I have been saying, it is the corruption of Islam at its
> worst with people inventing laws from books other than the Quran, contradict
> the Quran and show the Muslims as animals looking after personal pleasure
> above having a family and settlement in emotional and social life as Quran
> teaches.
Mutha is corruption of Islam at it's worst? Worse than killing
innocent people by flying planes into large buildings? Worse than
killing women in football stadiums for crimes? Worse than mowing down
other muslims in mosques and imambargahs as they worship, then
claiming that it is a divine duty to do so?
> then we wonder why the Muslims are defeated every where ? this is one of them,
> inventing laws that has nothing to do with God's laws in the Quran.
Muslims being defeated at every turn is NOT related to mutah, please
refrain from making such a ridiculous link.
> [30:21]. Among His proofs is that He created for you spouses from among
> yourselves, in order to have tranquility and contentment with each other, and
> He placed in your hearts love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are
> sufficient proofs for people who think.
No problem with this at all.
> What kind of tranquility is there in that few hours (or half an hour) marraiges
> for the woman ? and what kind of rights she gets after divorce ?
I think you'll find that if a man and women enter into mutah, they do
so because they want to. People may find tranquility in different
ways and different things, who are you to know what each individual
feels?
As for divorice in mutah, it is a fxed term contract and attached to
it is responsibility and duty.
> Unless the woamn is a prostitution and her guardian is a.....? she and he
> would NOT care.
I won't bother to answer this as it is insulting and sensationalist
and has no place in a discussion about Islamic laws.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52:
> Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa':
> While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, "You have been allowed to do the
> Mut'a (marriage), so do it."
>
> Go look up the Arabic Text and you will see it:
>
> Kunnaa fii jaysh fa ataanaa rasuulu rasuulillah (sawa) faqaala inna qad adhina lakum an
> TASTAMTI'UU FASTAMTI'UU.
>
> If you are not proficient enough in Arabic to see that both the words in 4:24 of the Qur'an
> "Itamta'tum" and the one in Bukhari and Muslim "tastamti'uu" are different conjugations of the
> same exact Arabic word, I can't help you!
>
> you have: istamta'a in the past tense, yastamti'u in the present, itstamti' in the command.
>
> Even Imam Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim adds, "Ya'ni Mut'atan nisaa".
>
> This is getting too redundant here.
>
Yes, it is getting quite redundant here especially when people cannot
comprehend the argument. Your run arounds in grammatical tenses only
further proves the point.
I said specifically tell me where the usage of the word istamta'a is
meant muta and you give me examples of the usage of the word istamtaa.
Now we agree that the word is a verb form so it connot be translated
as:
"You have been allowed to do MUTA."
It more accurately, as we will see down below is:
"You are allowed to SEEK PLEASURE FROM THEM, so seek pleasure from
them."
To further prove the point:
Now all the Arabic sources say the following:
Aqrab al-Mawarid:
"istamta`a be kaza" has the same meanings as "Tamatta`a be kaza" and
"Imtata`a be kaza" which has been described as: "To take
advantage/pleasure from something for a long time".
"Al-Mawrid",
"Istamta`a be" means: "to enjoy; to savor; relish; get pleasure from;
to take pleasure or satisfaction or delight in; to have for one's use
or benefit; have the use or benefit of".
So we have absolute evidence on the meaning of the word, istima'ata
and nowhere does it mean muta. In fact,as the Arabic dictionaries
state, the usage is well-known for something not even dealing with
sexual intercourse. The usage of the word is in a generalized sense.
This is even acknowledged in the commentary you quoted.
The most that can be inferred from this hadeeth is that istamta'a can
be used for sexual intercourse and this we already know from the verse
in Surah Nisai 4:24. To make the issue even clearer, I will give an
example in Engslih:
"I sought pleasure from the prostitute down the street."
"I sought pleasure through my Nintendo."
In the first instance, the issue of seeking pleasure refers to the act
of sex. The second case refers to playing a video game. As is clear
>from Nisai 4:24, the Quran is talking about sexual intercourse, and
not only sexual intercourse once, but for a period of time. As stated
before continuously, the verse is talking about the issue of mehr.
The Quran is making it an obligation on the men that despite the fact
that they have lived with their wives, enjoyed them, and continue to
enjoy them, they still must consider it binding on themselves to pay
the mehr. The only case they may not is if the party mutually agrees
on giving it up. In the next verse, the Quran talks about the mehr of
the slave-girl. God Almighty still makes it binding on a man to pay
the mehr to a woman whom he marries though she is a slave girl. This
is very beautiful because we know that if somebody desires to marry a
slave-girl, he may think that he is doing her a favour and he would be
absolved with respect to the normal rights a woman would have.
Once again, let me sum up the shia argument for you to make this quick
regarding reference to the Quran:
"In the above verse, the Arabic equivalent of the word "marriage" or
any of its derivatives has NOT been used. Rather the derivative of
word "Mut'a" (pleasure/temporary marriage) has been used, i.e.,
"Istamta'tum". The word Istamta'a is the tenth verbal form of the root
m-t-a. As we will show shortly, the word Istamta'a has also been
widely used in the authentic Sunni collections for Temporary Marriage.
Of course, Mut'a is one type of marriage, but some of it's regulations
are different than the permanent marriage, including the fact that the
couple can extend this contract by mutual agreement as the end of
verse specifies."
Now the argument rests on the fact that the word istamta'tum is
derived from the same root as the word muta. Now, as I stated in the
past, this does not in any way mean that the verb is related to the
issue of muta. That is why I have asked and continued to ask for the
proof of the USAGE of the word 'Istamtaa', not the morphology of the
word. The usage of this word is not particular with respect to a
man-woman relationship.
So take note once again, the usage of the word istamta'a means to
enjoy. Now I ask you once again, where is the proof for the
conventional usage for the word "istamta'a" as referring to "being
engaged in muta", "having a nikah a
temporarily" or any other similar form?
According to you:
"Even Imam Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim adds, "Ya'ni Mut'atan
nisaa".
Now, obviously from the narration itself the issue is muta and
everybody knows that the hadeeth is referring to muta. This is not
the issue of discussion. The issue of discussion is over the usage of
the word 'istamta'a' which as ALL THE ARABIC dictionaries say refers
to "enjoying and taking pleasure from". And in this very hadeeth, it
is used in the exact same sense. So once again, the question remains.
There is no word MUTA in the Quran, and there is absolutely no
regulations detailing how to conduct oneself in muta. The Quran gives
detailed regulations regarding the treament of one's wives and one's
slave-girls, yet not in one single case is there the word muta.
So whether you want to give such an act religous backing, you will
find absolutely no support for it in the Quran, nor will you find any
support in it from the word istamta'a.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > Prophet as well as during the rule of Abu Bakr and half the rule of 'Umar!
>
> This is true and anyone who can put two and two together must admit
> that a disagreement among the Companions is a disagreement among the
> Sunnis. Ibn Abbas was among those who never believed assertions that
> the Prophet, upon whom be peace, had prohibited Mut'ah.
>
Salaam
It is so "well-known" that there are a few narrations in the Book of
Bukhari, and two of the three in volume 6, Book 60 are alleged to deal
with ibn Abbass (R). By the death of the Prophet (S), ibn Abbass (R)
was a maximum of 15 years old. He would not even be allowed to
participate in battles let alone the Battle of Khaibar during the time
of the Prophet (S). We know for a fact that the maximum age allowed
in the first Battles were 15, and there is no evidence to say that the
bar was reduced to let younger men participate. In fact, it is highly
unlikely that the age limit was reduced considering the fact that by
then, the Muslim ummah had increased and they were not so short on men
that they needed 10-15 year olds. It is extremely difficult to
imagine ibn abbass (R) being an authority on muta.
Now as for the claim that ibn Abbass never believed the assertions
that the Prophet (S) forbade muta there is the following narration
attributed to Ali (R):
I said to Ibn 'Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet
forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut'a and the eating of donkey's meat."
So basically, it is well-acknowledged that all of the major Companions
(R) participated in the Battle of Khaiber. Umar and Abu Bakr both
participated in it, and in fact they both requested that they take the
flag that the Prophet (S) presented. Thus, to claim that the Prophet
(S) disallowed in in Khaybar and it was being practiced during the
time of Abu Bakr (R), let alone Umar (R) is absurd.
Further, in Muslim, it says:
Iyas b. Salama reported on the authority of his father that Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave sanction for contracting
temporary marriage for three nights in the year of Autas and then
forbade it.
So this narration claims that muta was allowed for 3 nights, and
afterwards was forbidden.
Then we have this narration:
Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:
"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the
time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it
illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who
regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."
So in this narration, muta is alleged to have have been authorized by
the Quran itself, contradicting the countless other narrations. Not
only that, this narration is meant to stain Umar (R).
Then there is another narration that follows:
Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas commanded to do Mut'a while Ibn Zubair
forbade to do it. I mentioned this to Jabir Ibn Abdillah and he said:
It is through me that this Hadith has been circulated. We did Mut'a
(of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar
was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for
his Messenger whatever He liked and as He liked. And its command was
revealed in Quran. Thus accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah
has commanded you, and confirm (by reverting to permanent marriage)
the marriages of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And
any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration
(i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him.
This is obviously the same narration as:
"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, 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."
This narration says that ibn abbass and ibn Zubair were arguing over
muta, yet neither of them participated in any of the Battles of the
Prophet (S). This last hadeeth is similar to the hadeeth alleging
that according to Umar (R), God Almighty revealed a law concerning
stoning the adulterers but had it abrogated. Umar (R) is then alleged
to say the law is still in effect. But in this case, Umar (R) is said
to have stated the law is no longer in effect. So we have two similar
narrations casting Umar (R) in a bad light. In the first, it is
alleged he is overturning the ruling of the Prophet (S) and in the
second, it is alleged he is putiing into effect a ruling that has been
abrogated.
The contradictions of these narrations are so obvious that it becomes
cleare as I state before that the traditions need to be reexamined.
> The disagreement of the Companions cannot be resolved by the agreement
> of scholars of a later age to impose whatever standards they please
> upon the law.
>
Why cannot one say that traditions need to be reexamined? The Quran
is very clear in this regard and there is absolutely no support for
muta in it.
The Quran does not even use the word muta let alone given regulations
in regards to the practice.
> It may be possible for a ruler to prohibit Mut'ah, for whatever
> reason, but such a legal sanction would only be temporary and would
> not its fundamental legality in Shariah law.
>
Shareeah law is not based upon contradictory narrations. Shareeah
law, its allowances and prohibitions, are in the Quran and the Quran
has referred to only two types of sexual relationships, through
marriage and concubines. There is no law for muta. Further, the
sunnah refers to the well-trodden path of the Prophet (S) and such
contradictory narrations establish nothing except that it is not
'well-trodden'. The sunnah itself does not even refer to shareeah
prohibitions.
> >
> > I hope you will now drop the subject.
>
> Mut'ah is one of the favorite tirades of anti-Shia sectarians. It is
> normally introduced in order to attack Shias and draw them into public
> confrontations.
>
It is a moral issue and is in direct contradiction to the spirit of
the Quran.
>
> The underlying issue is whether a marriage contract may or may not
> contain a time clause.
If the Quran refers to the issue of talaq very seriously and binds it
with a certain time period, and if the Quran refers to the stability
of the family as the primary reason for a successful society, and if
the Quran gives a very strict punishment for zina, and if the Quran in
fact gives them a public punishment to expose them, and if the Quran
does not recognize that an adulterer can marry one who never committed
the act, why is muta even a discussion today?
And what happens to all the legal rights of somebody born through
muta, and the inheritance rights if the man dies while engaged in muta
and so on and so forth? Yet, the Quran does not deal with them. So
yes, we do have a problem and a serious problem with those that claim
muta is supportedby Islam and the Quran.
Submitter19
<<Please point out to me in the Koran where it is explicitly stated, without
ANY ambiguity, the number of times a muslim should pray each day, the wording
of the azaan or the shahada or the exact sequence/routine for performing
ablutions. I would like to see clear, exact details.>>
Please read,
http://www.submission.org/ablution.html
http://www.submission.org/salat-where.html
And show me ONE person who learned his salat or zakat by reading Hadith books.
<< What if I were away from home for a prolonged period and needed for a lady
to help me cook/clean for me in my temporary abode? >>
You can hire a cook and get someone to wash your cloth. You do not have to
sexually assault her as well. Why do you think you have rights for that sexual
assault without TRUE marriage? How about your wife back home, Should she
divorce you and marry, a temporary marriage, until you come back. She has the
right for Mu'ta too, Does not she ?
<< Islamically speaking, a lady that I am eligible to be married to can't be in
the house with me alone. >>
then hire a man, if you have no control over your sexual desire, OR let the
lady come and leave when you are out and away.
<< Or, if there were a woman who had children but no husband or extended
family and I were lucky enough to be able to provide for her and her children,
both financially and as a fatherly influence for her
children.>>
This is not the same and in this case you can help her without having sex with
her or marrying her and if you have to marry her, it is TRUE marriage with all
its obligation, not a Mu'ta marriage.
<< But my wife preferred that I didn't engage in permanent marriage, instead a
fixed term, non-sexual relationship that may be renewed
whilst I am able to afford them this help? How is this un-Islamic or akin to
prostitution?>>
First, your wife would NOT allow you to marry another woman for your pleasure.
Second, your wife does NOT make the law, God does. Third. Do not be kidding us,
you will marry the woman to clean your house , and wash your cloths with NO
SEX. How about her right to have sex with her husband ??
You are making laws against God's laws in the Quran.
<< It's funny that you write about marrying your daughter or sister to a man
'for a few hours'. >>
But you did not answer the question, nor any of those who support Muta
marriage. DO YOU GIVE your daughter, sister or mother (if divorced or widowed)
to a total stranger to marry for half an hour or few hours and get some money
>from that man for that ??!!
<<Do you have a cast-iron guarantee that all
permanent marriages in Islamic societies carry on forever?>>
This is irrelevant. Marriage in the Quran should be with the intention of
building a family NOT to break one from the very beginning.
<<
> AND if this is not a PROSTITUTION ? what is it ??!!.
This is NOT prostitution, this is Islam as condoned by the Holy
Prophet(S) and practiced by a number of his companions.>>
These are just few more lies in the Hadiths books that contradict the Quran.
There are many of these and like these false hadiths.
If some Muslims are divorcing their wives in less than the four months waiting
period mentioned in the Quran they are breaking God's laws. These Muslims do
not make the law, they break it. God makes the laws. 2:226
<<Please point me to exactly where in the Koran the above words are written.>>
2:226, 4:35
<< Mutha is corruption of Islam at it's worst? Worse than killing innocent
people by flying planes into large buildings?....>>
Breaking God's laws and making your own, is idol-worship and it is the worst
sin that one can commit. It is the ONLY un-forgivable sin if maintained till
death.
S.A.
http://www.submission.org/
rj...@mailandnews.com
a couple of other points:
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:
also
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 durnig 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.
lastly concerning the word istamta'tum used in 4:24, it is quite obvious for those
proficient in Arabic that it is the same verb used in many hadeeth for fixed-term
marriage.
Regardless of that fact it can not be logically translated as
"for those that you reaped a benefit from them"
because giving the dowry in a conventional marriage is not dependent on one "reaping
a benefit".
In marriage the dowry is due as soon as the contract is made and if a divorce takes
place before intercourse half is due. See 2:237
If ye divorce them before ye have touched them and ye have appointed unto them a
portion, then (pay the) half of that which ye appointed 2:237
"for those that you had fixed-term marriage with" is therefore the logical
translation.
Omar
> > Ibn Abbas was among those who never believed assertions that
> > the Prophet, upon whom be peace, had prohibited Mut'ah.
> Salaam
> Now as for the claim that ibn Abbass never believed the assertions
> that the Prophet (S) forbade muta there is the following narration
> attributed to Ali (R):
[see original post above]
> The contradictions of these narrations are so obvious that it becomes
> cleare as I state before that the traditions need to be reexamined.
Closer examination may indeed explain these.
> > The disagreement of the Companions cannot be resolved by the agreement
> > of scholars of a later age to impose whatever standards they please
> > upon the law.
> Why cannot one say that traditions need to be reexamined? The Quran
> is very clear in this regard and there is absolutely no support for
> muta in it.
The fundamental legal principle is that whatever is not expressly
prohibited is permitted. We do not appear to have an agreement about
the prohibition of mut'a in the Sunna. A clear prohibition of it in
the Quran would prempt all other discussion, but there is none.
> The Quran does not even use the word muta let alone given regulations
> in regards to the practice.
Mut'a is a form of marriage. Of course, you are right, the regulations
given in the Quran regarding divorce would be redundant in the case of
a temporary marriage, but this is not in itself proof that temporary
marriage was abolished by the Quran.
> > It may be possible for a ruler to prohibit Mut'ah, for whatever
> > reason, but such a legal sanction would only be temporary and would
> > not its fundamental legality in Shariah law.
> Shareeah law is not based upon contradictory narrations. Shareeah
> law, its allowances and prohibitions, are in the Quran and the Quran
> has referred to only two types of sexual relationships, through
> marriage and concubines. There is no law for muta.
Shariah law is itself an abstraction. We cannot really speak of
"Sharia law" as if it were a single code or system of law but are
naturally compelled to speak of systems of law derived from something
Muslims call Shairah. There are many legal systems that have been
elaborated by Muslims in the course of their political history that
qualify as Sharia.
And again Muta'a is a form of marriage. The disagreement is about
whether or not this form of marriage is legal.
> [Muta'a] is a moral issue and is in direct contradiction to the spirit of
> the Quran.
It seems to me that the keeping of sex slaves might be rather more of
a moral issue than a stipulation in a marriage contract establishing a
time when the contract shall expire.
The claim that such-and-such "contradicts the spirit of the Quran"
must be the final refuge of the defeated.
> > The underlying issue is whether a marriage contract may or may not
> > contain a time clause.
>
> If the Quran refers to the issue of talaq very seriously and binds it
> with a certain time period, and if the Quran refers to the stability
> of the family as the primary reason for a successful society, and if
> the Quran gives a very strict punishment for zina, and if the Quran in
> fact gives them a public punishment to expose them, and if the Quran
> does not recognize that an adulterer can marry one who never committed
> the act, why is muta even a discussion today?
The fact that the Quran determines the way to legally terminate a
marriage does not demonstrate that a self-teminating temporary
marriage is not legal. If it did, then there would indeed be no need
of this discussion.
> And what happens to all the legal rights of somebody born through
> muta, and the inheritance rights if the man dies while engaged in muta
> and so on and so forth?
You need to consult Jaafari fiqh over this one.
> Yet, the Quran does not deal with them.
No? It deals with husbands, wives, sons, daughters and so on. Is a
wife in a temporary marriage not a wife? If a wife in conventional
zawwaj still your wife even after you divorce her? I don't follow
your reasoning here.
> So
> yes, we do have a problem and a serious problem with those that claim
> muta is supportedby Islam and the Quran.
It is something the Jaafari's permit and regulate in their fiqh. You
may reject it if you like or simply abstain from it. It is nothing to
you.
You may say that slavery is permissable in Islam and that it is
permissable to rape your slave girls and share them with your buddies.
I think that this "contradicts the spirit of Islam" and if you do it
here you may be prosecuted for zina and possibly beheaded.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
asimm...@yahoo.com
> 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.
I already established the contradictory narratives. I said explicitly
that there are narrations that say muta was forbidden in Khaybar and
even Abu Bakr participtaed in this. ibn Abbass did not, and in fact
he did not participtae in any battle of the Prophet. So then we have
the issue of why did not Abu Bakr prohibit this alleged practice and
yet are we simply to believe these alleged narrations through ibn
Abbass (R), of whom never participated in any battle.
The point I was making is NOT whether these traditions say one thing,
I am saying that these traditions contradict each other so much that
they need to be reexamined. Thus, like I said beofre one will find no
support for muta in the Quran, and I am not talking about 'traditions'
that claim one thing when in the end, they contradict each other to
such a large extent.
>
> lastly concerning the word istamta'tum used in 4:24, it is quite obvious for those
> proficient in Arabic that it is the same verb used in many hadeeth for fixed-term
> marriage.
I have already shown the evidence and the Arabic languages and you
keep repeating nothing but your sectarian favouritism. I asked you
for your proof of conventional usage and you keep repeating pure
falsehood. It shows that when it comes down to it, you are more
attached to your sectarian bias.
> Regardless of that fact it can not be logically translated as
> "for those that you reaped a benefit from them"
> because giving the dowry in a conventional marriage is not dependent on one "reaping
> a benefit".
He says it cannot be logically translated in that way, though this is
the exact meaning of the hrase according to all the Arabic
dictionaries. Even the shia commentators recognize it as such, and
that is evident in the quotes even Jaffer brings up, but they
desparately try and convert this into the usage of muta. Jaffer has
given absolutely no proof on how the word is translated.
> In marriage the dowry is due as soon as the contract is made and if a divorce takes
> place before intercourse half is due. See 2:237
>
Now you are desparately looking for a way out.
First, the mehr is based upon the concept that the man is financially
bound with respect to his wife. It is not a payment for sexual
intercourse, though this is an obvious corollary to the issue of
marriage. Thus, mehr is actually a symbol of the husband's
reposnibility to provide for the wife.
Second, the there is NO VERSE that stipulates when the dowry is made,
and whenever the Quran refers to it, says it the payment is "mutually
agreed upon." The normal mehr is usually paid upon the marriage but
it is not binding and it is upto the couple. One can stipulate in the
contract that the mehr will be paid twelve years down the road for
that matter and it is not as Jaffer says "as soon as the contract is
made." The contract is what stipulates when the mehr is to be paid.
In fact, Jaffer brings up the verse which totally contradicts the
claims he was making in the same senetnce. "And if you divorce them
before you touch them.." means that the marriage has already been
consummated legally but the mehr has not been paid. The Quran then
gives directives related to the payment of mehr.
Third, the comparison Jaffer has made is totally irrelevant to the
issue. The verse is saying that mehr is still binding despite the
fact that th
> "for those that you had fixed-term marriage with" is therefore the logical
> translation.
We have seen your logical translation. I asked you for proof form the
Arabic language and you gave zeron, NONE. And then you went to the
Quran and tried to intepret a meaning out of the word which is not
established by the Arabic language or the Quran itself.
So liek I said before, you will not find any support from the Quran
for muta.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> The fundamental legal principle is that whatever is not expressly
> prohibited is permitted. We do not appear to have an agreement about
> the prohibition of mut'a in the Sunna. A clear prohibition of it in
> the Quran would prempt all other discussion, but there is none.
>
The Quran has only allowed sexual relations between the spouse and the
slave girl and it has expressly disallowed any other form of
relationship. The Quran has specifically dealt with both
relationships but has not given a single verse with reference to
conducting oneself in muta.
How can one even say muta was a sunnah when the Prophet was never
reported to have engaged in it and the Quran does not give a single
page on how it is to be conducted? The narrations do not establish
that muta was part of shareeah.
In fact, there is another narration which encourages the youth to get
married, and if they cannot afford it to fast. So where in THIS
narration does it say to perform muta?
> > The Quran does not even use the word muta let alone given regulations
> > in regards to the practice.
>
> Mut'a is a form of marriage. Of course, you are right, the regulations
> given in the Quran regarding divorce would be redundant in the case of
> a temporary marriage, but this is not in itself proof that temporary
> marriage was abolished by the Quran.
>
Calling a cat by any other name will not make it other than a cat.
The point I was making with respect to divorce is to demonstrate that
the Quran severely warns that divorce is not to be misused and it is
the last resort. I was not talking about the 'legal aspect' of
divorce. The Quran has stipulated a period of days before another
talaq can be made for a MORAL purpose and that is so man will not
abuse his right or divorce his wife in a state of emotional frnezy.
The Quran deals specifically with ensuring the rights within the
family and deals specifically with preserving the family. Muta is in
total contradiction to the teachings of Islam with regards to the
social setup of Islam.
>
> Shariah law is itself an abstraction. We cannot really speak of
> "Sharia law" as if it were a single code or system of law but are
> naturally compelled to speak of systems of law derived from something
> Muslims call Shairah. There are many legal systems that have been
> elaborated by Muslims in the course of their political history that
> qualify as Sharia.
>
God Almighty himself uses shareeah as a divine term and anyone that
claims that is an aberration is contradicted by the Quran itself.
Thus, in surah Shoora God refers to the differences in shareeah
between Prophets, but their being unified with respect to the deen,
and in numerous other verses refers to his laws as clear. The Prophet
(S) was expressly ordered to make the shareeah clear without any
qualifications whatsoever, and the Quran itself testifies to the
completion of its message. The Sahabah themselves bore witness to it
on the day of Arafat that the Prophet had delivered his message. The
Sahabah (R) were not disunited on what constituted shareeah and to
claim that they did not know muta was forbidden is nothing short of an
absurdity despite the fantastical claims of the sunni and shia
schoalrs.
Fiqh is the human understanding of these divine laws and they do not
qualify as shareeah. Even then, the majority of fiqh that has been
transmitted has been nothing but a perversion of the shareeah because
they have failed to even understand the Quranic philosophy behing
certain injunctions, which are in fact, clearly spelled out in the
FURQAN itself. And they have added so many injunctions to shareeah
that are not shareeah and the injunctions of shareeah are in actuality
few. Muta has aboslutely NO BASIS in the shareeah.
> > [Muta'a] is a moral issue and is in direct contradiction to the spirit of
> > the Quran.
>
> It seems to me that the keeping of sex slaves might be rather more of
> a moral issue than a stipulation in a marriage contract establishing a
> time when the contract shall expire.
>
The Quran was dealing with a society that was ALREADY polygamous. It
was deeply rooted in the system of Arabia and the Quran in fact took
steps to eradicate it. Nobody in their right mind is going to say I
am going to enslave woman and have sexual relations with her, because
nobody is dealing with a polygamous society. The Quran actually
forbade the Muslims from taking any more prisoners of war despite the
history of many Muslims doing otherwise.
> The claim that such-and-such "contradicts the spirit of the Quran"
> must be the final refuge of the defeated.
>
If one analyzes the Quran it becomes clear. The Quran preserves
marriage, it does not seek to make it temporary or does it dissolve
them.
> > > The underlying issue is whether a marriage contract may or may not
> > > contain a time clause.
> >
> > If the Quran refers to the issue of talaq very seriously and binds it
> > with a certain time period, and if the Quran refers to the stability
> > of the family as the primary reason for a successful society, and if
> > the Quran gives a very strict punishment for zina, and if the Quran in
> > fact gives them a public punishment to expose them, and if the Quran
> > does not recognize that an adulterer can marry one who never committed
> > the act, why is muta even a discussion today?
>
> The fact that the Quran determines the way to legally terminate a
> marriage does not demonstrate that a self-teminating temporary
> marriage is not legal. If it did, then there would indeed be no need
> of this discussion.
>
This is the typical example of the legalistic framework of the
Pharisees. I may not fish on Saturday but I can set up my nets to
catch the fish. I would not be doing any work. Even though the
Sabbath was suppose to be a day when the Jews were suppose to leave of
ALL business and worship their Lord, they tried to find a way to
subvert it. And God Almighty still does not absolve them of this act
and losing sight of the spirit.
The Quran has dealt with the legality of talaq with the MORAL purpose
in mind. This is further confirmed in the narrations where the
Prophet would turn red if somebody pronounced talaq in three swipes.
Why does one think Umar (R) said that 3 talaqs at once constituted one
pronouncement because of the abuse of the law?
The Quran further within the talaq period of these happenings speaks
about the dignified way in which the women is to be treated. The
Quran also elaborates on seeking arbitration between couples that are
seeking divorce. The point that I was making is that the Quran wants
to ENSURE the stability of the family and has only allowed divorce
after this period. Furhter, it is the man who can intiiate the
divorce period, and the woman can only go through the state.
When the Quran refers to these regulations of marriage then where is
the concpet of the Quran promoting muta when it does not deal with any
of its regulations. Once again, the Quran has said explicitly that
the only sexual relationshipo allowed is between zauj and slave girls.
And there is no evidence that zawj has been used for muta.
> > And what happens to all the legal rights of somebody born through
> > muta, and the inheritance rights if the man dies while engaged in muta
> > and so on and so forth?
>
> You need to consult Jaafari fiqh over this one.
>
> > Yet, the Quran does not deal with them.
>
> No? It deals with husbands, wives, sons, daughters and so on. Is a
> wife in a temporary marriage not a wife? If a wife in conventional
> zawwaj still your wife even after you divorce her? I don't follow
> your reasoning here.
>
The point is this:
The Quran has only allowed sexual relations with zawj and slave-girls.
Now if muta is to be established there has to be proof that a muta is
a zawj in the Arabic language and the Quran uses it in that sense.
But the Quran does not use it in that sense as all the directives
about talaaq and mehr deal with a permanent relationship in mind.
>
> It is something the Jaafari's permit and regulate in their fiqh. You
> may reject it if you like or simply abstain from it. It is nothing to
> you.
>
I did not say that they can or cannot permit it, but I said that they
will find no support for it from the Quran.
> You may say that slavery is permissable in Islam and that it is
> permissable to rape your slave girls and share them with your buddies.
> I think that this "contradicts the spirit of Islam" and if you do it
> here you may be prosecuted for zina and possibly beheaded.
>
And the punishment would rightfully be imposed and it would not fall
under zina but spreading fasaad in the land and would be subjected to
a sever punishment, the least being exile as the Quran itself says.
But, in my opinion, it would be among the other more sever penalties.
The Quran has forbidden that people be made slaves.
"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their
heads, and when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind your captives
firmly – then grant them their freedom (either as a favour or) against
some ransom – until the war lays down its armour. (47:4)"
There are only two options now allowed "Grant them their freedom or
against a ransom."
And surely we do not disobey the Quran by enslaving the people. Islam
teaches us to free them.