Various scandalous and corrupt beliefs of Twelver Shias

[Maripat]

Shia scholars always provide us with some valuable gems, take this tainted gem for example:





Gems!!! :rolleyes:
Yuk!

[AbdurRaheem2]

What should we expect from these people....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iELEHzq5U

[A.Khalil]

Reading that story about Hadhrat Ali (ra) predicting the Brazilian football team just too much. Do people actually believe that? I think my sides are hurting from too much laughter lol. May Allah (swt) guide the Shia.

[TripolySunni]

Salam Aleykum,

It's been a while since I last posted here, been very busy, but just to remind you brothers that the more you dig into books of Hadith the more priceless GEMS you find!

This my friends is a picture of the city of Yanbu` in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.saa6e.com/vb/imgcache/2/2894saa6e.jpg
http://www.alwaraqat.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=520&d=1327556322

It is located here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Yanbu,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png/612px-Yanbu,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png


Now we read in Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah a narration with an authentic chain to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (rah):


حدثنا حفص بن غياث عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عمر أقطع عليا ينبع وأضاف إليها غيرها.

[Hafs bin Ghiyah told us, from Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq, from his father that `Umar gave away (the land of) Yanbu` to `Ali and then added others(lands) to it.]


In other words he gave him a vast and priceless piece of land as prize!

wal-Salamu `Aleykum,

[Maripat]

:mash:
Looks like amazon forests.

Shh... Iran might claim it their own. Unless, of course, Israel gets better of them.

[AussieLebo]

Hello everyone...!! Asalemwa3alakum -- I'm new here and I want to learn more about my deen insha2allah...!!
Can someone help me out with this *shia/ sunni* conflict please. thank you in advance...!! much love <3 :))

[wellwisher]

Hello everyone...!! Asalemwa3alakum -- I'm new here and I want to learn more about my deen insha2allah...!!
Can someone help me out with this *shia/ sunni* conflict please. thank you in advance...!! much love <3 :))

Walaikumsalam

The major difference between Sunnis and Shias is that Sunnis believe in finality of Prophethood, while the believes of Shias are those which reject the finality of Prophethood.

http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/do-shias-believe-in-finality-of-prophethood/

[TripolySunni]

Hello everyone...!! Asalemwa3alakum -- I'm new here and I want to learn more about my deen insha2allah...!!
Can someone help me out with this *shia/ sunni* conflict please. thank you in advance...!! much love <3 :))

I'm also Lebanese :)

unfortunately not Aussie.

[Usama2]

:salam:

:jazak: TripolySunni for your invaluable efforts here.

I wanted to add a truly distressing account of the Shia Qarmati which was received reported on here in Al Arabiya (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/16/232485.html)

These Shia, aka Ismailis aka Qarmatis, gained power in the area of Ahsa Bahrayn right at about the time of the end of the Abbasi khilafah.
They invaded Makka aL Munawarra and the Holy Sanctuary, killed 70,000 pilgrims, removed the Black Stone to Bahrayn, and ransomed it for years until eventually returning it.
These Shia were linked to Persian Zoroasterianism and other shirk. They were led by ABu Taher al Qarmati.
It was returned to Makka in 339 AH after being broken and kept in Bahrayn for several years.

See Ibn Katheer's Al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 11/72, 73 for reference.

How terrible a group they are?!

[AussieLebo]

Both my parents are from Lebanon -- Troblous ( Tripoli in English ), but I'm born & live here in Australia (Sydney)! :)
I hope all the muslim countries have better leaders & hope for the people to learn their deen and love one another, without having corruption.
It's great to meet you, and Kul 3id wa atantum bikhair everyone...!! :)))

[EuropeanThinker]

Mayby some can clarify this but i think the late Shaykh Ayatullah Fadlullah of Lebanon was quite close towards Sunni Islam.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

:salam:

:jazak: TripolySunni for your invaluable efforts here.

I wanted to add a truly distressing account of the Shia Qarmati which was received reported on here in Al Arabiya (http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/16/232485.html)

These Shia, aka Ismailis aka Qarmatis, gained power in the area of Ahsa Bahrayn right at about the time of the end of the Abbasi khilafah.
They invaded Makka aL Munawarra and the Holy Sanctuary, killed 70,000 pilgrims, removed the Black Stone to Bahrayn, and ransomed it for years until eventually returning it.
These Shia were linked to Persian Zoroasterianism and other shirk. They were led by ABu Taher al Qarmati.
It was returned to Makka in 339 AH after being broken and kept in Bahrayn for several years.

See Ibn Katheer's Al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 11/72, 73 for reference.

How terrible a group they are?!

Walaikum Salam,

Indeed, they are a terrible group with terrible beliefs.

One question the Article says some fragments of the black stone are still missing. How true is this claim?

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

Mayby some can clarify this but i think the late Shaykh Ayatullah Fadlullah of Lebanon was quite close towards Sunni Islam.

Salam Alaikum,

The Shia scholars issued verdicts against him.

Watch this video He says 'رضی الله عنه May Allah be pleased with him' after mentioning Abubakr Siddiq [ra]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXLg4Bdjtqk

Maybe bro TroplySunni can give more information.

[TripolySunni]

Mayby some can clarify this but i think the late Shaykh Ayatullah Fadlullah of Lebanon was quite close towards Sunni Islam.


He doesn't follow the mainstream Shiasm that we're used to, he was apparently moderate, knew that it's in the best interest of Shias to not appear like the enemy of Muslims, and thus he denied many stories fabricated against the Sahaba (ra), and sometimes he would make Taradhee on them, Allah knows best about his intentions, he died a couple of years ago and there's no use of talking about him now.

[EuropeanThinker]

He doesn't follow the mainstream Shiasm that we're used to, he was apparently moderate, knew that it's in the best interest of Shias to not appear like the enemy of Muslims, and thus he denied many stories fabricated against the Sahaba (ra), and sometimes he would make Taradhee on them, Allah knows best about his intentions, he died a couple of years ago and there's no use of talking about him now.

I've also seen fatwas on his websites where he rejects those who call upon the imams.

[TripolySunni]

I've also seen fatwas on his websites where he rejects those who call upon the imams.

In order to bring the Shia closer to mainstream Islam you need a 1000 scholars like Fadlullah if not better, sadly he died and the rest of the filthy scholars are alive.

[AbdurRaheem2]

There was a Persian King (Nadir Shah, he was the one who stole the treasure from Delhi and effectively finished the power of the Mughals) who wanted to turn the Persian twelvers into a "fifth Sunni madhab" by removing everything from their religion contrary to Ahlus Sunnah thought,
but they assassinated him before he oversee it to be done.

[TripolySunni]

There was a Persian King (Nadir Shah, he was the one who stole the treasure from Delhi and effectively finished the power of the Mughals) who wanted to turn the Persian twelvers into a "fifth Sunni madhab" by removing everything from their religion contrary to Ahlus Sunnah thought,
but they assassinated him before he oversee it to be done.

If it weren't for the leaders of some idiot extremest Sufi Tariqas such as the Haydariyyah they'd still be Sunni Shafi`i to this very day.

[AbdurRaheem2]

you know you just gave me the idea of starting a thread on the "crimes of the Saffavids"

[Younes]

If it weren't for the leaders of some idiot extremest Sufi Tariqas such as the Haydariyyah they'd still be Sunni Shafi`i to this very day.

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

Why so? Why did these Sufi Tariqas do, or not do ?

[AbdurRaheem2]

Wa Alaikum Assalam.

Saffavid dynasty was founded by a Shiah tareeqa. Once in power it basically persecuted Persian Sunnis out of existence through terrible ways.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

Why so? Why did these Sufi Tariqas do, or not do ?

Walaikum Salam,

Let me mention one example. When Safavids were attacking some cities in Iran these deviant Sufi groups were telling people not to resist Allah will help them.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

There was a Persian King (Nadir Shah, he was the one who stole the treasure from Delhi and effectively finished the power of the Mughals) who wanted to turn the Persian twelvers into a "fifth Sunni madhab" by removing everything from their religion contrary to Ahlus Sunnah thought,
but they assassinated him before he oversee it to be done.
Yeah, King Nadir Shah attempted to bring Iranians back to correct Islam. Also, his soldiers were all Sunni.

[Younes]

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

AbdurRaheem2, you said that the Safavid dynasty was established by a Shia Sufi tariqa. I did not know they were Sufi Shias. AbuMuslim, you spoke of deviant Sufi groups discouraging people from defending theirselves. Were these groups "Sunni" (if we can call them that) or were they Shia. Because I think it would be obvious that Shia Sufi groups will discourage people from fighting. Are both of these ideas of the dynasty being established by a Sufi Shia group and the people being discouraged from fighting but deviant Sufi groups (not necessarily Shia) true?

[TripolySunni]

It's a deviant Sufi Tariqa and you can read this book here which explains all about it:
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=4114

The head of the Sufi Tariqa who established the state was around 14 years old if I remember, but he was just a figure head, the Tariqa was leading the state in reality.

they were people along the lines of this guy:
http://themuslim500.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/profile-haqqani.jpg

They were a Turkish Tariqa from Azerbaijan, they later would have fights against their Ottoman cousins.

[A.Khalil]

It's a deviant Sufi Tariqa and you can read this book here which explains all about it:
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=4114

The head of the Sufi Tariqa who established the state was around 14 years old if I remember, but he was just a figure head, the Tariqa was leading the state in reality.

they were people along the lines of this guy:
http://themuslim500.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/profile-haqqani.jpg

They were a Turkish Tariqa from Azerbaijan, they later would have fights against their Ottoman cousins.

Isn't that "sheikh" nazim? The guy has got fake written all over him, doesn't stop him ranking in the mureeds though. His imamah probably ways more than him lol

[mh16388]

Shiites in London Celebrate the Day Prophet Muhammad's Wife 'Aisha Died (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOZLdqyxpY&feature=share)

[AbdurRaheem2]

Shiites in London Celebrate the Day Prophet Muhammad's Wife 'Aisha Died (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOZLdqyxpY&feature=share)

They are scum. If they tried to do that in front of the Sunnis here they would get a good beating InshaAllah.

notice though Memri are stirring things between Sunni and Shiah, but it doesn't change the reality of what they are showing.

[Maripat]

Shiites in London Celebrate the Day Prophet Muhammad's Wife 'Aisha Died (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOZLdqyxpY&feature=share)
Very clean clip. It will be useful to make our case when we are bombarded with the unity wisdom.

[mh16388]

the rafidhis in pakistan recently edited a LeJ video in which two shia terrorists confess to their crimes on camera and then they are killed as per Qisas.

the rafidhis deleted the confession (minus a small moment in video where their voices are removed and sad music is placed) and then showed their killing made to look like as though random shia non-combatants were slaughtered.

and the shia video has gone viral.

while the actual video isnt even uploaded anyhwere! (to the best of my knowledge)

[mh16388]

Iranian state TV intentionally mistranslating some words of Morsi...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgXUwoFa4FA)

[Abu Zakir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HsEkscqAgw

Crazy Shias beating themselves with whips in America. How is this Islamic? It is a completely different religion.

[abdulwahhab]

Iranian state TV intentionally mistranslating some words of Morsi...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgXUwoFa4FA)

:salam:

There seems to be a lot of mistranslating going on...from supporting the Syrian government to the Bahraini Shi'a.

Funnily enough, a Farsi speaker would be confused to see the Syrian delegation's walkout after Mursi's "favourable" words.

[Maripat]

the rafidhis in pakistan recently edited a LeJ video in which two shia terrorists confess to their crimes on camera and then they are killed as per Qisas.

the rafidhis deleted the confession (minus a small moment in video where their voices are removed and sad music is placed) and then showed their killing made to look like as though random shia non-combatants were slaughtered.

and the shia video has gone viral.

while the actual video isnt even uploaded anyhwere! (to the best of my knowledge)
I had flagged the video link posted here at SF but when I saw the thread last time the link was not removed. It was a very distressing video and I do not think it should have gone past the mods. That way we could have avoided our contribution to the spread of the content.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

AbuMuslim, you spoke of deviant Sufi groups discouraging people from defending theirselves. Were these groups "Sunni" (if we can call them that) or were they Shia. Because I think it would be obvious that Shia Sufi groups will discourage people from fighting. Are both of these ideas of the dynasty being established by a Sufi Shia group and the people being discouraged from fighting but deviant Sufi groups (not necessarily Shia) true?

Walaikum Salam ,

Yes in some areas some deviant sufi groups were lazy and feared for their lives and maybe other reasons so they used to tell people not to resist 'Allah will help them'. And yes they were 'Sunni'.

[musafeer]

Nail in the rafidi coffin.

Watch this short video (7min 51 sec) with English subtitles.

Ahlul-Bait loved Sahaba and cursed shias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjIz-dCK_cw

[Muzahmed]

Hey brother tripoly i was reading your thread mashallah its very good and knowledgeable Jazakallah khair I am from pakistan and arabic is not my language I want to ask about Mutah shia quote quran and word istaqatum ( mutah ) plz give me historical background of word mutah dose this word existed before islam??

[wellwisher]

Hey brother tripoly i was reading your thread mashallah its very good and knowledgeable Jazakallah khair I am from pakistan and arabic is not my language I want to ask about Mutah shia quote quran and word istaqatum ( mutah ) plz give me historical background of word mutah dose this word existed before islam??

Refer this link:
http://mullaandmutah.weebly.com/quran--mutah.html

[abdul12345]

http://gift2shias.com/2012/09/08/account-holder-of-the-youtube-channel-aishakafir-exposed-good-to-know-who-he-is/

[TripolySunni]

Saying Ya Allah is wrong, harmful and evil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuFceAoPalU

[Intrepid]

Hey brother tripoly i was reading your thread mashallah its very good and knowledgeable Jazakallah khair I am from pakistan and arabic is not my language I want to ask about Mutah shia quote quran and word istaqatum ( mutah ) plz give me historical background of word mutah dose this word existed before islam??

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/mutah/mutah-is-haram.html

[TripolySunni]

Admin of Rafidhi Shia forums admits their belief concerning Takfeer of Sahaba (as):

http://hcyfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/shiachatadmins1.jpg

[TripolySunni]

Racist authentic Shia narrations about marriage:

[ 25027 ] 1 ـ محمد بن يعقوب ، عن عدة من أصحابنا ، عن سهل بن زياد ، عن بكر بن صالح ، عن بعض أصحابه ، عن أبي الحسن الرضا ( عليه السلام ) قال : من سعادة الرجل أن يكشف الثوب عن امرأة بيضاء

[25027] 1- Muhammad b. Ya'qoob, from a group among our companions, from Sahl b. Ziyad, from Bakr b. Salih, from some of his companions, from Abi al Hasan al Reda (as) who said: "Its from the good fortune of the man that he undress a fair/white skinned woman (i.e. after marrying her, or purchasing her if she is a slave)."

Grading

Ayatullah Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr (Al Shia Page 127-128): Sahih (authentic)
Ayatullah Naeni (Mu'jam rijal Vol 1 page 81 and Durus Tamhidiyah): Sahih (authentic)
Ayatullah Abu Talb Tabrizi (Mu'jam al Mahasin Page 17): Sahih (authentic)
Shaikh Hurr al Amili (Khatima Wasail Page 249): Sahih (authentic)
Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani (Hadaiq al Nadirah Vol 1 Page 16): Sahih (authentic)
Muhadith Noori (Khatimah Al Mustadrak Vol 3 Page 363): Sahih (authentic)
Mullah Faid Kashani (Wafi Vol 1 Page 23): Sahih (authentic)



[ 25029 ] 3 ـ وعن علي بن إبراهيم ، عن أبيه ، عن النوفلي ، عن السكوني ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : تزوجوا الزرق فإن فيهن اليمن

يحتمل أن يكون الزرق تصحيف للرزق فيكون هذا الحديث بعينه ما مر في آخر باب أن التزويج يزيد في الرزق

ورواه الصدوق مرسلا ، إلا أنه قال : فان لهن البركة

[25029] 3- And from Ali b. Ibrahim, from his father, from al Nofali, from al Sakooni, from Abi Abdillah (as) who said: The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Marry the blue eyed women, for indeed in them is good fortune."

And Shaikh Sadooq reported it in mursal way, with slightly changed words. He reported "for indeed for them is barakah (blessing)".

Grading

Ayatullah Sistani (Qa'ida la darar Page 87-88): Sahih
Ayatullah Khomeini: Sahih
Ayatullah Fadil Lankarani: Sahih
Ayatullah Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr (Al Shia Page 127-128): Sahih
Ayatullah Naeni (Mu'jam rijal Vol 1 page 81 and Durus Tamhidiyah): Sahih
Ayatullah Abu Talb Tabrizi (Mu'jam al Mahasin Page 17): Sahih
Shaikh Hurr al Amili (Khatima Wasail Page 249): Sahih
Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani (Hadaiq al Nadirah Vol 1 Page 16): Sahih
Muhadith Noori (Khatimah Al Mustadrak Vol 3 Page 363): Sahih
Mullah Faid Kashani (Wafi Vol 1 Page 23): Sahih



[ 25030 ] 1 ـ محمد بن يعقوب عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن محمد بن ابي القاسم ، عن أبيه ، رفعه ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : المرأة الجميلة تقطع البلغم ، والمرأة السوداء تهيج المرة السوداء

[25030] 1- Muhammad b. Ya'qoob, from Muuhammad b. Yahya, from Muhammad b. Abi al Qasim, from his father, from Abi Abdillah (as) who said: "The beautiful woman stops/eases the phelgm , while the black woman stirs up black bile and melancholy (depression)."

Grading

Ayatullah Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr (Al Shia Page 127-128): Sahih
Ayatullah Naeni (Mu'jam rijal Vol 1 page 81 and Durus Tamhidiyah): Sahih
Ayatullah Abu Talb Tabrizi (Mu'jam al Mahasin Page 17): Sahih
Shaikh Hurr al Amili (Khatima Wasail Page 249): Sahih
Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani (Hadaiq al Nadirah Vol 1 Page 16): Sahih
Muhadith Noori (Khatimah Al Mustadrak Vol 3 Page 363): Sahih
Mullah Faid Kashani (Wafi Vol 1 Page 23): Sahih



[ 25033 ] 4 ـ وفي ( عيون الاخبار ) : عن محمد بن أحمد بن الحسين البغدادي ، عن علي بن محمد ( بن عنبسة ) عن دارم بن قبيصة ، عن الرضا ، عن آبائه ( عليهم السلام ) قال : قال رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) : اطلبوا الخير عند حسان الوجوه ، فإن فعالهم أحرى أن يكون حسنا

[25033] 4- And in Shaikh Sadooq's Uyun al Akhbar: From Muhammad b. Ahmad al Hussain al Baghdadi, from Ali b. Muhammad (b. Umbasah) from Darim b. Qusaibah from Imam al Reda (as) from his forefathers (as): The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Seek the good (khayr) through the beautiful faces, for indeed their deeds/actions are more likely to be good."

Grading

Shaikh Hurr al Amili (Khatima Wasail Page 249): Sahih
Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani (Hadaiq al Nadirah Vol 1 Page 16): Sahih
Mullah Faid Kashani (Wafi Vol 1 Page 23): Sahih



These reports were taken from shia website. I won't link to it but you can google them to find out.

[St1ngR]

Assalamualaikum,

It is understandable to educate us about the Twelver Shia in a scholarly or at least intellectually mature manner where even Twelver Shia Muslims can come here and explain themselves. But posting things in a sectarian manner then laughing and joking about it seems wrong to me and shouldn't be placed on a mature forum like this. I hope the moderators can come and check this thread out to make sure things are at an Islamic standard. Other wise we aren't very different than Shia forums where they ridicule Sunni Muslims and curse the companions of the Prophet. Sectarianism is quite intellectually immature in my view and espoused by those who are insecure about their own beliefs. Islam is pure and simple no matter what anyone says, to those who are wrong in their deen, Twelver Shia or others, the truth eventually comes to light. We can see this in places like KSA and Iran where the people are running from the deen due to their hypocritical, corrupt leaders.

[mospike]

" The Shia and Hadith " by the pride of Ahlus Sunnah, Shaykh Muhammad Taha Karaan (may Allah preserve him)


Its in Arabic

[goharjanjua]

Assalamualaikum,

It is understandable to educate us about the Twelver Shia in a scholarly or at least intellectually mature manner where even Twelver Shia Muslims can come here and explain themselves. But posting things in a sectarian manner then laughing and joking about it seems wrong to me and shouldn't be placed on a mature forum like this. I hope the moderators can come and check this thread out to make sure things are at an Islamic standard. Other wise we aren't very different than Shia forums where they ridicule Sunni Muslims and curse the companions of the Prophet. Sectarianism is quite intellectually immature in my view and espoused by those who are insecure about their own beliefs. Islam is pure and simple no matter what anyone says, to those who are wrong in their deen, Twelver Shia or others, the truth eventually comes to light. We can see this in places like KSA and Iran where the people are running from the deen due to their hypocritical, corrupt leaders.

Well said sir, but the people here are just in no mood of friendly discussion with others . . users, especially "Mullah" !!

[abdul12345]

asalaamu alaykum

I was wondering if I could have your email address tripolysunni.

[TripolySunni]

asalaamu alaykum

I was wondering if I could have your email address tripolysunni.

We're not allowed to give our e-mails on this forum.

Go to this forum "islamic-forum.net", we're all there.

[Maripat]

Assalamualaikum,

It is understandable to educate us about the Twelver Shia in a scholarly or at least intellectually mature manner where even Twelver Shia Muslims can come here and explain themselves. But posting things in a sectarian manner then laughing and joking about it seems wrong to me and shouldn't be placed on a mature forum like this. I hope the moderators can come and check this thread out to make sure things are at an Islamic standard. Other wise we aren't very different than Shia forums where they ridicule Sunni Muslims and curse the companions of the Prophet. Sectarianism is quite intellectually immature in my view and espoused by those who are insecure about their own beliefs. Islam is pure and simple no matter what anyone says, to those who are wrong in their deen, Twelver Shia or others, the truth eventually comes to light. We can see this in places like KSA and Iran where the people are running from the deen due to their hypocritical, corrupt leaders.
I do concur with the thesis that the discussion should rise above immaturity and sectarianism but having observed the thread for some time I do admire the academic rigor of the main contributor, brother TripoliSunni, and I do find his contributions both scholarly as well as intellectually mature. There might be lapses by others but looking at the Shia provocation one thing can be said without fear of contradiction that if a person remains unruffled then he has extraordinarily high level of Sabr.

I would also like to add that if people of Iran are turning against Deen then it is because of the deviant ways of Shia doctrine. That people are turning away from Deen in KSA too is a sort of news, more info will be appreciated, to yours truly but entirely expected one. Expected because of the unnecessarily stringent nature of Salafi ideology. I hope the powers that are operating there take note of this. Decline of Deen in any other country is a tragedy, decline in Saudia is a calamity.

[New_Muslim]

Admin of Rafidhi Shia forums admits their belief concerning Takfeer of Sahaba (as):

http://hcyfiles.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/shiachatadmins1.jpg

This really shocked me.

[TripolySunni]

This really shocked me.


Trust me when the Shia talk about "unity", they mainly use this as a tool to soften the hearts of Muslim so they can convert them to Shiasm, in reality they hide much hatred but the problem is they are expert liars so the only way to spot their hatred is by learning Arabic and reading their books.

The admins and members of the Shia forum have said even worse things such as openly saying the Quran is corrupted like here:
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq218/hanysal/Finkster1.jpg




or just plain ridiculous stuff like this:
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/Farid_Alkhajah/1-1.jpg

[New_Muslim]

Trust me when the Shia talk about "unity", they mainly use this as a tool to soften the hearts of Muslim so they can convert them to Shiasm, in reality they hide much hatred but the problem is they are expert liars so the only way to spot their hatred is by learning Arabic and reading their books.

The admins and members of the Shia forum have said even worse things such as openly saying the Quran is corrupted like here:
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq218/hanysal/Finkster1.jpg




or just plain ridiculous stuff like this:
http://i486.photobucket.com/albums/rr228/Farid_Alkhajah/1-1.jpg

Are you serious? I'm dumbfounded, really. I've never laughed so hysterically.

[New_Muslim]

Here is my conversation with them so far (http://www.*************/forum/index.php?/topic/235007799-hello-all-did-ali-as-have-deity-like-qualities/).

[TripolySunni]

Here is my conversation with them so far (http://www.*************/forum/index.php?/topic/235007799-hello-all-did-ali-as-have-deity-like-qualities/).


Cool let me comment on some of the things that were said quickly:


One of the sayings of Imam Ali is reported to be: "Two kinds of people will be damned on my account Those who form exaggerated opinion about me and those who under-estimate me because they hate me."

Great, and the group who forms exaggerated opinions about `Ali (ra) are the Twelver Shia who say he has all knowledge of the religion and that he is infallible and superior to prophets and has knowledge of the unseen and can do miracles and talk to angels and answer the call from beyond the grave so on...

The other group who hates him are called the "nawasib" and they reject all of `Ali's (ra) virtues and deny his right of Khilafah and curse him and so on...

The middle group is 90% of the Muslims, the average Muslims who neither raise him above his level like the Christians did with `Isa (as) nor hate him, but we praise him and value him.


However, when a comparison is made between all the slaves of God, Ali is far superior than other slaves.

This deviant Shia by mistake uncovered his true beliefs, he believes that `Ali (ra) is greater than all humans, he didn't even mention the prophet Muhammad (SAWS)!!

Most liars make a mistake and uncover their own lies.


However, we do something called the Tasbih of Fatima. This is where we take a string of 99 beads (divided into 33) and pray 34 alhamdulillahs, 33 allahu akbars, and 33 subhan'allahs. It's called the tasbih of Fatima because it is believed that this is how Fatima used to do it.

I doubt they can provide ONE authentic narration to prove this.


They are trying to degrade Mutah. Mutah is the same as a regular marriage, except it has an end date.

If you read this thread of mine you'll know that this man is lying, Mut`ah is nothing like marriage, it's prostitution plain and simple, you pay a girl to have sex with you then leave her after like half an hour.


May Allah strike them down with testicular cancer.

^ this guy is asking Allah to strike us with cancer???

and the rest is nonsense mixed with misinformation and things they invented so i can't bother reading it all now...

may Allah guide us all.

[Intrepid]

They are trying to degrade Mutah. Mutah is the same as a regular marriage, except it has an end date.

Just to elaborate on this point it is absolutely haraam and forbidden to go into marriage with any intention of a termination date, so then how is it like marriage? Do these people have no respect not even for there sister, I would ask them if they would allow anyone to do mutah with their sister as they are defending it so defiantly?

[TripolySunni]

Just to elaborate on this point it is absolutely haraam and forbidden to go into marriage with any intention of a termination date, so then how is it like marriage? Do these people have no respect not even for there sister, I would ask them if they would allow anyone to do mutah with their sister as they are defending it so defiantly?

Of course the Shia disrespect women, they even consider them like rented slaves when they do Mut`ah, look at the narrations in their books:

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from one of our companions from Zurara from Abu Ja`farعليه السلام. He said: I said to him: The man who marries in Mut`a and its duration expires then another man marries her until she separates from him then the first one marries her until she separates from him, thrice, and she married three husbands. It is allowed for the first one to marry her? He said: Yes, as much as he wants, this is not like the freewoman, this is a rented (or, hired) woman and she is of the status of the slave-girl.


more here:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?57727-Various-scandalous-and-corrupt-beliefs-of-Twelver-Shias&p=538320&highlight=status#post538320

[New_Muslim]

Of course the Shia disrespect women, they even consider them like rented slaves when they do Mut`ah, look at the narrations in their books:

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from one of our companions from Zurara from Abu Ja`farعليه السلام. He said: I said to him: The man who marries in Mut`a and its duration expires then another man marries her until she separates from him then the first one marries her until she separates from him, thrice, and she married three husbands. It is allowed for the first one to marry her? He said: Yes, as much as he wants, this is not like the freewoman, this is a rented (or, hired) woman and she is of the status of the slave-girl.


more here:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?57727-Various-scandalous-and-corrupt-beliefs-of-Twelver-Shias&p=538320&highlight=status#post538320

This is the one aspect of Shiaism I find real bogus.

[Maripat]

This really shocked me.
:astagh:
Sickening perverts.

[goharjanjua]

:astagh:
Sickening perverts.

hmmmm . . same goes for adult breastfeeding :lol:

[Maripat]

hmmmm . . same goes for adult breastfeeding :lol:
Salama

[New_Muslim]

hmmmm . . same goes for adult breastfeeding :lol:

Meaning?

[goharjanjua]

Meaning?


According to Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.
.
Dr Izzat Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.
.

Al-Azhar University Egypt
Dr Izzat Atiya Gave a Fatwa, said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.
His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."

The legal ruling sparked outrage throughout Egypt and the Arab world.

Egypt's minister of religious affairs, Mahmoud Zaqzouq, called for future fatwas to "be compatible with logic and human nature".

[TripolySunni]

According to Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.
.
Dr Izzat Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.
.

Al-Azhar University Egypt
Dr Izzat Atiya Gave a Fatwa, said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.
His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."

The legal ruling sparked outrage throughout Egypt and the Arab world.

Egypt's minister of religious affairs, Mahmoud Zaqzouq, called for future fatwas to "be compatible with logic and human nature".

This Strange Fatwa was rejected by all scholars, using it against all Muslims is quite a dumb thing to do, and the man was arrested because of this I think, these are authentic Fatwas:

This is not permissible; breast-feeding is only for infants aged upto 2 years. A man may suck his wife but this is counted as a sexual act, not as an act of breast-feeding that makes mahram relations. Needless to add, since all sexual acts outside of marriage are explicitly forbidden in Islam, so there is no question of any such thing being permissible between work colleagues.

--------------------------------------…


Question: I married the son of my maternal uncle, and I love him and he loves me. Only six months have passed since we got married, and everytime we go to sleep he grabs hold of me and begins sucking my breasts like a baby, so I said to him: "This is wrong!". However, he did not stop and I did not try to make it difficult for him.

Response: There is no harm in this, because it is for the married couple to enjoy themselves with each other in other than that which Allaah has prohibited.

This includes sexual intercourse in (her) anus or sexual intercourse whilst she is on her menses or in the state of post partum bleeding or in an act of worship within which sexual intercourse is haraam, or when he has pronounced his wife haraam upon himself until he pays a kaffaarah, and similar to these from those known aspects according to the people of knowledge where sexual intercourse is haraam and in it entails harm for the married couple.

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
Fataawa az-Zawaaj wa 'Ishratun-Nisaa. - Question 79, Page 109
--------------------------------------…

Islam Question and Answer
www.*************
Question No 2864
What is the ruling on drinking one’s wife’s milk?



Question:

My wife is currently feeding our newborn child.
During sex, I drank her milk.
Is her milk halal for me?

Answer:


Praise be to Allaah.

Before answering this question, we must explain some important points about the rulings (ahkaam) concerning breastfeeding (al-radaa’).

1. Breastfeeding is proven in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and by ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).

Qur’aan: Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… your foster mothers who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters…” [al-Nisa’ 4:23].

Sunnah: Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “What is forbidden by radaa’ (suckling or breastfeeding) is the same as what is forbidden by nasab (lineage).” (Agreed upon; al-Bukhaari, Muslim, 1444).

Ijmaa’: The scholars agree that the effect of radaa’ (breastfeeding) prohibits marriage and creates the relationship of mahram, and permits seeing and being alone (with the people to whom one is related through radaa’).

2. For breastfeeding to have the effect of transmitting its benefits from the nursing woman to the child suckled, it must meet certain conditions, which are:

The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child’s life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling…” [al-Baqarah 2:233].

The number of breastfeedings must total the known five feeds, in which the child eats his fill as if eating and drinking. If the child leaves the breast for a reason, such as to take a breath or to switch from one breast to the other, this (i.e., each separate time the child latches on) is not counted as one breastfeeding. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa’i, and the opinion favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim. The definition of rad’ah (one breastfeeding) is when the child sucks at the breast and drinks until the milk enters his stomach, then he leaves the breast of his own accord. The evidence for the number five (number of breastfeedings) is the report from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “There was in the Qur’aan [an aayah which stipulated that] ten [was the number of] breastfeedings which created the relationship of mahram, then this was abrogated [by another aayah which stipulated] five. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and [the aayah which stipulated five] was still being recited as part of the Qur’aan.” (Reported by Muslim, 1452). In other words, the abrogation came so late that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, some people had not yet heard that this aayah had been abrogated, but when they heard that it had been abrogated, they stopped reciting it, and agreed that it should not be recited, although the ruling mentioned in the aayah remained in effect. This is an abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling, which is one type of abrogation. Having understood this, breastfeeding after the first two years does not create any relationship of mahram. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and among the references which they quote is the aayah cited above, along with the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Nothing of breastfeeding creates the relationship of mahram except what fills the stomach to bursting point, before (the age of) weaning.” Reported by al-Tirmidhi. (No. 1152), who said: This is a hasan saheeh hadeeth. The application of this according to the scholars among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and others is that breastfeeding does not create the relationship of mahram except when it is within the first two years, and anything after the first two whole years does not create any such relationship.”

There are some other reports from the Sahaabah, such as that narrated from Abu ‘Atiyah al-Waadi’i, who said: “A man came to Ibn Mas’ood and said: ‘My wife was with me and her breasts were full of milk (she was engorged). I began to suck it and spit it out. Then I came to Abu Moosa.’ He (Ibn Mas’ood) said, ‘What did you tell him?’ So he (Abu Moosa) told him what he had told him. Then Ibn Mas’ood stood up, took the man’s hand (and said), ‘Do you think this is an infant? Breastfeeding is what produces the growth of flesh and blood.’ Abu Moosa said: ‘Do not ask me anything when this scholar is among you.’” (Reported by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf, 7/463, no. 13895).

In al-Muwatta’ (2/603), Maalik reported that Ibn ‘Umar said: “There is no breastfeeding except for the one who is breastfed in infancy; there is no breastfeeding for one who is grown up.” Its isnaad is saheeh.

Maalik also reported in al-Muwatta’ that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Dinar said: “A man came to ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar when I was with him in the court-house, asking him about breastfeeding one who is grown up. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar said: ‘A man came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and said, “I have a slave-girl with whom I used to have sexual relations, and my wife went to her and gave her her milk, then when I went to her, she said, ‘Stop, by Allaah I have given her my milk.’” ‘Umar said, “Punish her (your wife), and (continue to) go to your slave-girl, for (the ruling on) breastfeeding only applies to breastfeeding of infants.”’” Its isnaad is saheeh.

From this is it clear that drinking one’s wife’s milk has no effect and does not create the relationship of mahram. Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (9/201): “One of the conditions of breastfeeding creating the relationship of mahram is that it should be within the first two years. This is the opinion of most of the scholars. Something like this was narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Mas’ood, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Abu Hurayrah and the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from ‘Aa’ishah. It was also the opinion of al-Shi’bi, Ibn Shubrumah, al-Oozaa’i, al-Shaafa’i, Ishaaq, Abu Yoosuf, Muhammad, and Abu Thawr, and was narrated in one report from Maalik.

On the basis of the above, drinking one’s wife’s milk has no effect, but it is better to avoid it.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen was asked about this matter, and he replied: Breastfeeding a grown-up has no effect, because the breastfeeding which has an effect (of creating the relationship of mahram) is that which consists of five feedings or more within the first two years, before weaning. On this basis, if it happened that someone breastfed from his wife or drank her milk, he does not become her son. Fataawa Islamiyah, 3/338. And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
--------------------------------------…

Islam Question and Answer
www.*************
Question No 47721
The limits within which a married couple may enjoy intimacy with one another, and the ruling on a man suckling from his wife



Question:

Is it permissible for a man to suck on his wife’s breasts during intercourse?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The husband may enjoy intimacy with his wife in whatever way he wishes; the only thing that is forbidden is anal intercourse and intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period or nifaas (post-partum bleeding). Apart from that, he may enjoy his wife in whatever way he wants, such as kissing, touching, looking, etc.

Even if he sucks on her nipples, this comes under the heading of the intimacy that is permissible, and it cannot be said that the milk has any effect on him, because if an adult breastfeeds, it does not have any effect of making him a mahram. Rather the breastfeeding that has this effect is that which takes place during the first two years of life.

The scholars of the Standing Committee said:

It is permissible for a husband to enjoy all of his wife’s body, apart from the back passage and intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period or nifaas (post-partum bleeding), or when in ihraam for Hajj or ‘Umrah, until he has exited ihraam completely.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 19/351, 352.

The scholars of the Standing Committee said:

It is permissible for the husband to suck his wife’s breasts, and if any milk reaches his stomach it does not have the effect of making him a mahram.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen said:

Breastfeeding by an adult does not have the effect of making him a mahram, because the breastfeeding that has that effect is five breastfeedings or more within the first two years of life before weaning. Breastfeeding by an adult does not have that effect. Based on this, if we assume that someone breastfed from his wife or drank her milk, he cannot become a son to her.

Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/338.

With regard to it being permissible to enjoy anything concerning which there is no prohibition, there follow some of the views of the scholars:

Ibn Qudaamah said:

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the area between the buttocks without any penetration, because what is forbidden is the back passage, which is mentioned specifically, which is forbidden because of the filth, and that is specific to the back passage, therefore it expressly forbidden.

Al-Mughni, 7/226.

Al-Kasaani said:

Among the saheeh rulings on marriage is that it is permissible to look at and touch every part of her from head to foot when she is alive, because intercourse goes beyond looking and touching, so it is more appropriate that touching and looking should be permitted.

Badaa’i’ al-Sanaa’i’, 2/231

Ibn ‘Aabideen said:

Abu Yoosuf asked Abu Haneefah about a man who touches his wife’s private part and she touches his to stimulate arousal – did he see anything wrong with that? He said: No, and I hope that the reward will be greater.

Radd al-Muhtaar, 6/367.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stated that this is permissible when he forbade intercourse in the vagina with a menstruating woman, but he permitted all other parts of her body. So it is more obvious that it is permissible at times other than menstruation.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The words “He may enjoy everything else of her apart from that” means that the man may enjoy every part of the menstruating woman apart from the vagina.

It is permissible to enjoy what is above and below the waist wrapper (izaar), but the woman should be wrapped in a waist wrapper, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell ‘Aa’ishah to wrap herself in a waist-wrapper when she was menstruating, then he would be intimate with her. He told her to do that lest he saw something that he disliked, namely the menstrual blood. But if the husband wants to enjoy the area between the thighs, for example, there is nothing wrong with that.

If it is said: What do you say about the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he was asked what part of his wife is permissible for a man when she is menstruating and he said, “You have that which is above the waist-wrapper” and this indicates that one may only enjoy that which is above the waist-wrapper?

The answer is as follows:

1 – That is in order to be on the safe side and to avoid that which is forbidden.

2 – It may vary according to circumstances. The words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Do everything apart from intercourse” may be taken as being addressed to one who can control himself, and the words, “You have that which is above the waist-wrapper” may be taken as being addressed to one who cannot control himself, either because his religious commitment is too weak or his desire is too strong.

Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/417.

And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A

[goharjanjua]

This Strange Fatwa was rejected by all scholars, using it against all Muslims is quite a dumb thing to do, and the man was arrested because of this I think, these are authentic Fatwas:

This is not permissible; breast-feeding is only for infants aged upto 2 years. A man may suck his wife but this is counted as a sexual act, not as an act of breast-feeding that makes mahram relations. Needless to add, since all sexual acts outside of marriage are explicitly forbidden in Islam, so there is no question of any such thing being permissible between work colleagues.

--------------------------------------…

My husband sucks my breasts like a baby
*Please appropriately reference this fatwa to: www.*****************, thankyou!*
Question: I married the son of my maternal uncle, and I love him and he loves me. Only six months have passed since we got married, and everytime we go to sleep he grabs hold of me and begins sucking my breasts like a baby, so I said to him: "This is wrong!". However, he did not stop and I did not try to make it difficult for him.

Response: There is no harm in this, because it is for the married couple to enjoy themselves with each other in other than that which Allaah has prohibited.

This includes sexual intercourse in (her) anus or sexual intercourse whilst she is on her menses or in the state of post partum bleeding or in an act of worship within which sexual intercourse is haraam, or when he has pronounced his wife haraam upon himself until he pays a kaffaarah, and similar to these from those known aspects according to the people of knowledge where sexual intercourse is haraam and in it entails harm for the married couple.

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
Fataawa az-Zawaaj wa 'Ishratun-Nisaa. - Question 79, Page 109
--------------------------------------…

Islam Question and Answer
www.*************
Question No 2864
What is the ruling on drinking one’s wife’s milk?



Question:

My wife is currently feeding our newborn child.
During sex, I drank her milk.
Is her milk halal for me?

Answer:


Praise be to Allaah.

Before answering this question, we must explain some important points about the rulings (ahkaam) concerning breastfeeding (al-radaa’).

1. Breastfeeding is proven in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and by ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).

Qur’aan: Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… your foster mothers who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters…” [al-Nisa’ 4:23].

Sunnah: Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “What is forbidden by radaa’ (suckling or breastfeeding) is the same as what is forbidden by nasab (lineage).” (Agreed upon; al-Bukhaari, Muslim, 1444).

Ijmaa’: The scholars agree that the effect of radaa’ (breastfeeding) prohibits marriage and creates the relationship of mahram, and permits seeing and being alone (with the people to whom one is related through radaa’).

2. For breastfeeding to have the effect of transmitting its benefits from the nursing woman to the child suckled, it must meet certain conditions, which are:

The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child’s life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling…” [al-Baqarah 2:233].

The number of breastfeedings must total the known five feeds, in which the child eats his fill as if eating and drinking. If the child leaves the breast for a reason, such as to take a breath or to switch from one breast to the other, this (i.e., each separate time the child latches on) is not counted as one breastfeeding. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa’i, and the opinion favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim. The definition of rad’ah (one breastfeeding) is when the child sucks at the breast and drinks until the milk enters his stomach, then he leaves the breast of his own accord. The evidence for the number five (number of breastfeedings) is the report from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “There was in the Qur’aan [an aayah which stipulated that] ten [was the number of] breastfeedings which created the relationship of mahram, then this was abrogated [by another aayah which stipulated] five. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and [the aayah which stipulated five] was still being recited as part of the Qur’aan.” (Reported by Muslim, 1452). In other words, the abrogation came so late that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, some people had not yet heard that this aayah had been abrogated, but when they heard that it had been abrogated, they stopped reciting it, and agreed that it should not be recited, although the ruling mentioned in the aayah remained in effect. This is an abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling, which is one type of abrogation. Having understood this, breastfeeding after the first two years does not create any relationship of mahram. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, and among the references which they quote is the aayah cited above, along with the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Nothing of breastfeeding creates the relationship of mahram except what fills the stomach to bursting point, before (the age of) weaning.” Reported by al-Tirmidhi. (No. 1152), who said: This is a hasan saheeh hadeeth. The application of this according to the scholars among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and others is that breastfeeding does not create the relationship of mahram except when it is within the first two years, and anything after the first two whole years does not create any such relationship.”

There are some other reports from the Sahaabah, such as that narrated from Abu ‘Atiyah al-Waadi’i, who said: “A man came to Ibn Mas’ood and said: ‘My wife was with me and her breasts were full of milk (she was engorged). I began to suck it and spit it out. Then I came to Abu Moosa.’ He (Ibn Mas’ood) said, ‘What did you tell him?’ So he (Abu Moosa) told him what he had told him. Then Ibn Mas’ood stood up, took the man’s hand (and said), ‘Do you think this is an infant? Breastfeeding is what produces the growth of flesh and blood.’ Abu Moosa said: ‘Do not ask me anything when this scholar is among you.’” (Reported by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf, 7/463, no. 13895).

In al-Muwatta’ (2/603), Maalik reported that Ibn ‘Umar said: “There is no breastfeeding except for the one who is breastfed in infancy; there is no breastfeeding for one who is grown up.” Its isnaad is saheeh.

Maalik also reported in al-Muwatta’ that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Dinar said: “A man came to ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar when I was with him in the court-house, asking him about breastfeeding one who is grown up. ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar said: ‘A man came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and said, “I have a slave-girl with whom I used to have sexual relations, and my wife went to her and gave her her milk, then when I went to her, she said, ‘Stop, by Allaah I have given her my milk.’” ‘Umar said, “Punish her (your wife), and (continue to) go to your slave-girl, for (the ruling on) breastfeeding only applies to breastfeeding of infants.”’” Its isnaad is saheeh.

From this is it clear that drinking one’s wife’s milk has no effect and does not create the relationship of mahram. Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (9/201): “One of the conditions of breastfeeding creating the relationship of mahram is that it should be within the first two years. This is the opinion of most of the scholars. Something like this was narrated from ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn Mas’ood, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Abu Hurayrah and the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from ‘Aa’ishah. It was also the opinion of al-Shi’bi, Ibn Shubrumah, al-Oozaa’i, al-Shaafa’i, Ishaaq, Abu Yoosuf, Muhammad, and Abu Thawr, and was narrated in one report from Maalik.

On the basis of the above, drinking one’s wife’s milk has no effect, but it is better to avoid it.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen was asked about this matter, and he replied: Breastfeeding a grown-up has no effect, because the breastfeeding which has an effect (of creating the relationship of mahram) is that which consists of five feedings or more within the first two years, before weaning. On this basis, if it happened that someone breastfed from his wife or drank her milk, he does not become her son. Fataawa Islamiyah, 3/338. And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
--------------------------------------…

Islam Question and Answer
www.*************
Question No 47721
The limits within which a married couple may enjoy intimacy with one another, and the ruling on a man suckling from his wife



Question:

Is it permissible for a man to suck on his wife’s breasts during intercourse?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The husband may enjoy intimacy with his wife in whatever way he wishes; the only thing that is forbidden is anal intercourse and intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period or nifaas (post-partum bleeding). Apart from that, he may enjoy his wife in whatever way he wants, such as kissing, touching, looking, etc.

Even if he sucks on her nipples, this comes under the heading of the intimacy that is permissible, and it cannot be said that the milk has any effect on him, because if an adult breastfeeds, it does not have any effect of making him a mahram. Rather the breastfeeding that has this effect is that which takes place during the first two years of life.

The scholars of the Standing Committee said:

It is permissible for a husband to enjoy all of his wife’s body, apart from the back passage and intercourse during the wife’s menstrual period or nifaas (post-partum bleeding), or when in ihraam for Hajj or ‘Umrah, until he has exited ihraam completely.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 19/351, 352.

The scholars of the Standing Committee said:

It is permissible for the husband to suck his wife’s breasts, and if any milk reaches his stomach it does not have the effect of making him a mahram.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghadyaan, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Qa’ood.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen said:

Breastfeeding by an adult does not have the effect of making him a mahram, because the breastfeeding that has that effect is five breastfeedings or more within the first two years of life before weaning. Breastfeeding by an adult does not have that effect. Based on this, if we assume that someone breastfed from his wife or drank her milk, he cannot become a son to her.

Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/338.

With regard to it being permissible to enjoy anything concerning which there is no prohibition, there follow some of the views of the scholars:

Ibn Qudaamah said:

There is nothing wrong with enjoying the area between the buttocks without any penetration, because what is forbidden is the back passage, which is mentioned specifically, which is forbidden because of the filth, and that is specific to the back passage, therefore it expressly forbidden.

Al-Mughni, 7/226.

Al-Kasaani said:

Among the saheeh rulings on marriage is that it is permissible to look at and touch every part of her from head to foot when she is alive, because intercourse goes beyond looking and touching, so it is more appropriate that touching and looking should be permitted.

Badaa’i’ al-Sanaa’i’, 2/231

Ibn ‘Aabideen said:

Abu Yoosuf asked Abu Haneefah about a man who touches his wife’s private part and she touches his to stimulate arousal – did he see anything wrong with that? He said: No, and I hope that the reward will be greater.

Radd al-Muhtaar, 6/367.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stated that this is permissible when he forbade intercourse in the vagina with a menstruating woman, but he permitted all other parts of her body. So it is more obvious that it is permissible at times other than menstruation.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The words “He may enjoy everything else of her apart from that” means that the man may enjoy every part of the menstruating woman apart from the vagina.

It is permissible to enjoy what is above and below the waist wrapper (izaar), but the woman should be wrapped in a waist wrapper, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to tell ‘Aa’ishah to wrap herself in a waist-wrapper when she was menstruating, then he would be intimate with her. He told her to do that lest he saw something that he disliked, namely the menstrual blood. But if the husband wants to enjoy the area between the thighs, for example, there is nothing wrong with that.

If it is said: What do you say about the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he was asked what part of his wife is permissible for a man when she is menstruating and he said, “You have that which is above the waist-wrapper” and this indicates that one may only enjoy that which is above the waist-wrapper?

The answer is as follows:

1 – That is in order to be on the safe side and to avoid that which is forbidden.

2 – It may vary according to circumstances. The words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), “Do everything apart from intercourse” may be taken as being addressed to one who can control himself, and the words, “You have that which is above the waist-wrapper” may be taken as being addressed to one who cannot control himself, either because his religious commitment is too weak or his desire is too strong.

Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 1/417.

And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A

I agree, but am amazed at why it was there in the first place !!

[TripolySunni]

I agree, but am amazed at why it was there in the first place !!

Although this strange Fatwa was issued by some random scholar, and although he was arrested and the strange Fatwa was condemned and rejected by the Muslims, yet we cannot compare this to Shia Mut`ah, because ALL Shia scholars and followers embrace Mut`ah and it is heavily practiced in their societies, it is a part of their religion and they have Hadiths for it... so it is a failed comparison.

[goharjanjua]

Although this strange Fatwa was issued by some random scholar, and although he was arrested and the strange Fatwa was condemned and rejected by the Muslims, yet we cannot compare this to Shia Mut`ah, because ALL Shia scholars and followers embrace Mut`ah and it is heavily practiced in their societies, it is a part of their religion and they have Hadiths for it... so it is a failed comparison.

I disagree Sir.

[Jinn]

I disagree Sir.

You shouldn't it's an act of ibadah (worship) for you guys which has been practiced for centuries

[TripolySunni]

I disagree Sir.

My Wife is an ex-Shia, trust me she told me that in her Shia school this used to be done a lot, some keep it secret, some even have celebrations. Maybe it's just the Syrians who knows, but we've read MANY articles from Shia sources talking about how problematic Mut`ah has become in Iran.
You'll find babies thrown in the garbage often.

[goharjanjua]

My Wife is an ex-Shia, trust me she told me that in her Shia school this used to be done a lot, some keep it secret, some even have celebrations. Maybe it's just the Syrians who knows, but we've read MANY articles from Shia sources talking about how problematic Mut`ah has become in Iran.
You'll find babies thrown in the garbage often.

except these areas, I have seldom had any report of mut'ah

[TripolySunni]

except these areas, I have seldom had any report of mut'ah

Look no use hiding it, I'm in Lebanon, we have Shia here, Mut`ah is like a regular thing.

Even if you google thee net without much research you can find articles and reports about this, for example:
http://gift2shias.com/2011/04/17/muta-market-mashad-city/

[goharjanjua]

Look no use hiding it, I'm in Lebanon, we have Shia here, Mut`ah is like a regular thing.

tell me of malaysia, turkey, pakistan, bangladesh etc etc

[New_Muslim]

According to Hadith, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.
.
Dr Izzat Atiya, the head of al-Azhar's Department of Hadith, said such teachings could equally apply to adults.
.

Al-Azhar University Egypt
Dr Izzat Atiya Gave a Fatwa, said it offered a way around segregation of the sexes at work.
His fatwa stated the act would make the man symbolically related to the woman and preclude any sexual relations.

He said that if a woman fed a male colleague "directly from her breast" at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work.

"Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," he ruled.

"A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed."

The legal ruling sparked outrage throughout Egypt and the Arab world.

Egypt's minister of religious affairs, Mahmoud Zaqzouq, called for future fatwas to "be compatible with logic and human nature".

Interesting.

[TripolySunni]

By the way, have fun watching these, apparently the Shia think their "Imams" know the future and the unseen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euguIhmAjPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdo6YIlM3hI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8tg6SblQD8

[Jinn]

tell me of malaysia, turkey, pakistan, bangladesh etc etc

Are you kidding yourself or something ? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also Pakistan is rife with muta.

[Abu Yaseen]

Are you kidding yourself or something ? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also Pakistan is rife with muta.


Someone I knew years back went with tablighi jamaat to Thailand, he told me someone appeared at the masjid they were at asking if they wanted to do mut'ah, the brothers had no idea what it was until it was explained to them- the guy was offering them prostitutes. The conversation wasn't even about the sunni/ shia divide- he was just telling me about the various incidents they encountered whilst there.

[Shahed-560]

except these areas, I have seldom had any report of mut'ah

Brother in humanity Goharjanjua, you seem to be an innocent Shia, not yet ripe with layer of all those Shia doctrinal crust, brother TripolySunni has painstakingly and elaborately laid out. Please while still there is time turn to Islam, turn to salvation. In any case do not leave this forum until you gain enough insight of Islam that you can gain from various threads in this forum. Please be open, read and examine them with an open heart. I have hope for you and I shall pray for you. But let the Taqiyah get lost into oblivion.

[Jinn]

Someone I knew years back went with tablighi jamaat to Thailand, he told me someone appeared at the masjid they were at asking if they wanted to do mut'ah, the brothers had no idea what it was until it was explained to them- the guy was offering them prostitutes. The conversation wasn't even about the sunni/ shia divide- he was just telling me about the various incidents they encountered whilst there.

That's hilarious bro but it's sad though that they treat their women like rent girls and then have the audacity to call themselves Muslims and use the name of Islam.

I've heard of worser things such as Shia group orgies in the mosque, some places in Pakistan etc they have a day during the year where the guy takes the women of his house there for the night, heard a story once that some guy thought when I go to the mosque for the orgy in which they turn the lights off and whoever you grab is yours for a little while, anyway this guy thought I will take a pen and put a mark on her forehead so the next day I will know who I done the deed with. Anyway following morning he's sitting at his table awaiting breakfast and he's sees that his mum's forehead and sisters forehead have pen marks on them, on seeing this he faints. Some say he became Sunni afterwards but Allah knows best about this whole thing, I've heard some messed up things about these people.

In Pakistan they are slander the sahaaba they write the names of Umar r.a in feces etc, I've got no respect for these people they are a bunch of liars who have no respect for the loved ones of the Prophet, may Allah protect us from this filthy fitna and may the curse of Allah be on those who slander the Sahaba r.a-Ameen

[goharjanjua]

Brother in humanity Goharjanjua, you seem to be an innocent Shia, not yet ripe with layer of all those Shia doctrinal crust, brother TripolySunni has painstakingly and elaborately laid out. Please while still there is time turn to Islam, turn to salvation. In any case do not leave this forum until you gain enough insight of Islam that you can gain from various threads in this forum. Please be open, read and examine them with an open heart. I have hope for you and I shall pray for you. But let the Taqiyah get lost into oblivion.

Jazak Allah for your support.


But let the Taqiyah get lost into oblivion.

hahaha :lol: hillarious !!

thats where you Sunni's are WRONG ... Taqiyah is not something going on every second of our lives.... its just , in front of a person who would LOVE to kill you JUST because you say Laa'an over the Killers of Hussain :alayhis:

[goharjanjua]

That's hilarious bro but it's sad though that they treat their women like rent girls and then have the audacity to call themselves Muslims and use the name of Islam.

I've heard of worser things such as Shia group orgies in the mosque, some places in Pakistan etc they have a day during the year where the guy takes the women of his house there for the night, heard a story once that some guy thought when I go to the mosque for the orgy in which they turn the lights off and whoever you grab is yours for a little while, anyway this guy thought I will take a pen and put a mark on her forehead so the next day I will know who I done the deed with. Anyway following morning he's sitting at his table awaiting breakfast and he's sees that his mum's forehead and sisters forehead have pen marks on them, on seeing this he faints. Some say he became Sunni afterwards but Allah knows best about this whole thing, I've heard some messed up things about these people.

Very, Very bad source brother . . . these are just made up stories against us . . . U heard these... did you ever witness it yourself? Do you have any proof? Dont be a talebearer !!


In Pakistan they are slander the sahaaba they write the names of Umar r.a in feces etc, I've got no respect for these people they are a bunch of liars who have no respect for the loved ones of the Prophet, may Allah protect us from this filthy fitna and may the curse of Allah be on those who slander the Sahaba r.a-Ameen

Yes,
Curse of Allah be on those who slander the Sahaba:anhum:
Curse of Allah be on those who Hate the Sahaba :anhum:
Curse of Allah be on those who Disrespect the Sahaba:anhum:

Why not ,
Curse of Allah be on those who slander the Prophet:saw:
Curse of Allah be on those who Disrespected the Prophet:saw:
Curse of Allah be on those who Doubt the Prophet:saw: and his Prophet-Hood

[TripolySunni]

Yes,
Curse of Allah be on those who slander the Sahaba:anhum:
Curse of Allah be on those who Hate the Sahaba :anhum:
Curse of Allah be on those who Disrespect the Sahaba:anhum:

Why not ,
Curse of Allah be on those who slander the Prophet:saw:
Curse of Allah be on those who Disrespected the Prophet:saw:
Curse of Allah be on those who Doubt the Prophet:saw: and his Prophet-Hood

You've just cursed ALL your Shia scholars because all of them curse and insult and slander the Sahaba (ra). I can provide as many sources as you want for this.

[wellwisher]

Jazak Allah for your support.



hahaha :lol: hillarious !!

thats where you Sunni's are WRONG ... Taqiyah is not something going on every second of our lives.... its just , in front of a person who would LOVE to kill you JUST because you say Laa'an over the Killers of Hussain :alayhis:

Unfortunately many shia(like u) are ignorant of what their cult actually preaches. HEre are few shocking hadeeth from shia shia books for you, regarding the permissibility of lying and deceiving people.

Shia infallible Imam in shia hadeeth states:
إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .
Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation – other than shias or new shia – then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …(tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152)

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ
“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’” (Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4 ; & Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77)

(Shia scholars) al-Ansari and al-Roohani commented on the Hadith (Above) of Imam Abu Abdullah: “The words “Bahitouhum Kay La Yatma’ou” in the Hadith mean accusing them of things and thinking that they have ill intentions which is Haram in the case of dealing with a believer, so one cannot say about the believer things like: “He might be a Kaffir or a Zani”… And it could be left to its apparent form thus it would permissible to LIE to them for a certain benefit.” Shia sources (Kitab al-Makasib by al-Ansari 2/118), (Minhaj al-Fuqahaa 2/228).

Intrestingly Giant shia scholars give fatawas(verdicts) based on these narrations for example Grand Ayatullah Al Khoei’i

سؤال 1245: هل يجوز الكذب على المبدع أو مروج الضلال في مقام الاحتجاج عليه إذا كان الكذب يدحض حجته ويبطل دعاويه الباطلة؟ الخوئي: إذا توقف رد باطله عليه جاز.
Question”1245″: Is it Possible to Lie or produce Arguments which contain Lies when Debating with a person who Is a Follower of Bida’a (Innovation/ they probably mean Sunnis) and a spreader or Dala’la (Ignorance/ us as well) If this Lie would Destroy my Opponent’s Arguments?
Imam Khoei’i Answers: If it will stop his Falsehood then it is Permissible to do So. (Imam Khoei’i, Sirat el Najat, Volume 1, Page 447) (online source)

A similar fatwa was issue by Grand ayatullah sistani:
السؤال: هل يعاقب الله الشخص اذا اجبر على الكذب في مواضع محرجة اذا سئل عنها خاصة اذا كان المقابل يسال كثيرا عن اشياء لاتخصه؟
الجواب: لايجوز الكذب الا اذا كان لدفع ضرر.

[wellwisher]

This really shocked me.
This might shock you as well, moreover there is stuff there which might make you laugh too.

http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/enemies-and-haters-of-ahlelbayt-according-to-shias/

[goharjanjua]

إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .
Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation – other than shias or new shia – then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …(tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152)

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ
“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’” (Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4 ; & Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77).

Do you consider yourself from the people talked about here?

[TripolySunni]

Do you consider yourself from the people talked about here?

According to Shia scholars all other Muslims are Kouffar and at least at least are Ahlul-Bid`ah, your scholars allow cursing and insulting and slandering and lying to Sunnies, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW.

[New_Muslim]

According to Shia scholars all other Muslims are Kouffar and at least at least are Ahlul-Bid`ah, your scholars allow cursing and insulting and slandering and lying to Sunnies, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW.

They decree openly lying is permissible?

[TripolySunni]

They decree openly lying is permissible?

Yes sir... this will go into much detail later, they also attributed it to their Imams, although we know that their Imams are innocent of this accusation.

[New_Muslim]

Yes sir... this will go into much detail later, they also attributed it to their Imams, although we know that their Imams are innocent of this accusation.

When, later?

We believe in these Imams as respectable scholars and nothing else, right?

[TripolySunni]

When, later?

We believe in these Imams as respectable scholars and nothing else, right?


Not only that, the first 6 of these Imams have actually narrated many narrations in our books, all authentic, and many of our scholars were their students, so it's impossible for them to have been "Shia" in fact we have many authentic narrations by these same members of Ahlul-Bayt criticizing the Shia and accusing them of lies.

As for shia lying, it's called Taqiyyah, this is a vast topic and my specialty, it needs a lot of time to cover it, so maybe later we can discuss it, I wrote a lot of articles on this one that i'll give you later.

[al_Zayn]

May Allah reward you both, Br TripolySunni and Br Wellwisher! Excellent Job by you both, keep it coming.

[afriki_haqq]

:salam:

Shaykh Taha Karaan (https://ulamadeoband.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/al-shafii-al-saghir-shaykh-taha-karaan/) of Cape Town, South Africa was one of the guest speakers at the weekly majlis which takes places at Dar al-'Ulum Zakariyyah, Johannesburg. Shaykh Taha Karaan spoke about the dangers of Shi'ism in the context of unity in the Muslim Ummah. To listen to this important lecture download audio from this link (https://sites.google.com/site/muftismajalis4/home/muftismajalis4/Majlis_Mufti_RadhaulHaq_Shb_DB-11.11.2012.mp3?attredirects=0). Shaykh begins talking from about 30 or 32 minutes.

I might summarise the main points made by Shaykh Taha later, or another brother can do the same.

:ws:

[Maripat]

May Allah reward you both, Br TripolySunni and Br Wellwisher! Excellent Job by you both, keep it coming.
With you brother Al_Zayn on this and Ameen to the Dua'.

[wellwisher]

May Allah reward you both, Br TripolySunni and Br Wellwisher! Excellent Job by you both, keep it coming.
Wa iyyakum for your dua akhee. Please pray that the Shias are guided by our efforts, this is the purpose of our efforts. May Allah guide them.

[New_Muslim]

Not only that, the first 6 of these Imams have actually narrated many narrations in our books, all authentic, and many of our scholars were their students, so it's impossible for them to have been "Shia" in fact we have many authentic narrations by these same members of Ahlul-Bayt criticizing the Shia and accusing them of lies.

As for shia lying, it's called Taqiyyah, this is a vast topic and my specialty, it needs a lot of time to cover it, so maybe later we can discuss it, I wrote a lot of articles on this one that i'll give you later.

Wow, I'd love to read it. Drop me a PM when you get it.

[TripolySunni]

Wow, I'd love to read it. Drop me a PM when you get it.

Do you have skype? if you don't, make one and give me your skype ID.

[New_Muslim]

Do you have skype? if you don't, make one and give me your skype ID.

I'll make one soon and pass it on.

I'm almost done reading this thread.

[Maripat]

I'm almost done reading this thread.
You get my respects brother. I got busted on page one.

[New_Muslim]

You get my respects brother. I got busted on page one.

I'm an English major, so reading is like an addiction. :p

What a mess is Shiaism.

[Maripat]

I'm an English major, so reading is like an addiction. :p

Ah! That explains it.
I heard this only recently that literature people are voracious readers.
Though it is none of my business but I still have not come in terms with it!
When I was dabbling with the thought of learning speed reading a friend told me the following joke.
A person did this weekend course on speed reading and became proficient in that art.
The first thing he did was to read Tolstoy's War and Peace.
A friend asked him what is it about?
He said, "Oh it is about Russia".


And thus I am stuck with my tortoise speed.

[AussieLebo]

I have a question for brother tripoli sunni or any other sunni or this forum. Al7amdulilah I've found out the beauty of ahla sunnah wal jamaa3a & I'm very much convinced. I have read into the biographies of some companions and tafseer on qur'anic ayat.
Anyways back to my question which is regarding the death of hussein ( peace be upon him ). Do sunnis believe that yazeed killed hussein or not?
I have heard many sunnis accuse yazeed of being responsible for husseins death. But when I read into this conflict I have concluded that yazeed had nothing to do with karbala2.
Please enlighten me with some of your thoughts. Thanks...!!

[TripolySunni]

I have a question for brother tripoli sunni or any other sunni or this forum. Al7amdulilah I've found out the beauty of ahla sunnah wal jamaa3a & I'm very much convinced. I have read into the biographies of some companions and tafseer on qur'anic ayat.
Anyways back to my question which is regarding the death of hussein ( peace be upon him ). Do sunnis believe that yazeed killed hussein or not?
I have heard many sunnis accuse yazeed of being responsible for husseins death. But when I read into this conflict I have concluded that yazeed had nothing to do with karbala2.
Please enlighten me with some of your thoughts. Thanks...!!

The issue comes down to this, we do not know the intentions of Yazid, did he intend to kill him from the beginning, or just stop him and prevent him from reaching kufa? In both cases he is responsible and he will get what's coming to him on the day of judgement.

[AussieLebo]

The issue comes down to this, we do not know the intentions of Yazid, did he intend to kill him from the beginning, or just stop him and prevent him from reaching kufa? In both cases he is responsible and he will get what's coming to him on the day of judgement.

1. Yazeed R.A.H had no intention of killing hussein R.A or hurting him.
2. There was no revolution from hussein of any kind towards yazeed, but hussein in the beginning refused to give his allegience to yazeed.
3. Yazeed was accepted as a legitimate ruler by all of the muslim rulers of the time.
4. All muslim rulers gave there allegience towards yazeed.
5. Yazeed's rule as a leader was acceptable & it was islamic.
6. Yazeed holds no responsibility over the death of hussein.
7. Ahlal kufa gave there allegience to hussein for him to come to kufa. Husseing accepted there offer, and went to kufa with his family.
8. After hussein went to kufa, ahlal kufa betrayed him and surrounded him.
9. After hussein found out, he wanted to go back to accept the rule of yazeed, or go back to mecca to live there.
10. Therefore hussein later on accepted yazeed as the ruler, but it was too late for him & he got killed by ahlal kufa specifically ubaidallah bin ziyad & shamr bin aljawshan.
11. Yazeed aso cried after hearing the martyrdom of hussein, & was very upset from this tragic event that took place at karbala'.
12. You're correct about yazeed not wanting him to go to kufa. It was best for hussein to remain under the legitimate rule of yazeed.
13. Many companions went to hussein and said not to go to kufa. Ahlal kufa gave there allegience to hussein then betrayed him. Hussein fell into there trap.
14. Hassan R.A also said that he never liked ahlal kufa because of how they betrayed his father, then himself, and feared that they will do the same to hussein.
15. Hassan sent a letter to hussein for him to not listen to ahlal kufa and not to take there allegience.
16. Ahlal kufa betrayed ali, hassan & then did the same for hussein.
17. In the end it was hussein's ijtihaad to make his decision by accepting the baya made by ahlal kufa.
If you think there is a correction somewhere, please correct me.
Btw for everyone who wants to know who I follow:
I follow sheikh ul islam & muhammad ibn abdul wahab :)
Salemu3alaikum wara7matullah wa barakatu...!!

[New_Muslim]

1. Yazeed R.A.H had no intention of killing hussein R.A or hurting him.
2. There was no revolution from hussein of any kind towards yazeed, but hussein in the beginning refused to give his allegience to yazeed.
3. Yazeed was accepted as a legitimate ruler by all of the muslim rulers of the time.
4. All muslim rulers gave there allegience towards yazeed.
5. Yazeed's rule as a leader was acceptable & it was islamic.
6. Yazeed holds no responsibility over the death of hussein.
7. Ahlal kufa gave there allegience to hussein for him to come to kufa. Husseing accepted there offer, and went to kufa with his family.
8. After hussein went to kufa, ahlal kufa betrayed him and surrounded him.
9. After hussein found out, he wanted to go back to accept the rule of yazeed, or go back to mecca to live there.
10. Therefore hussein later on accepted yazeed as the ruler, but it was too late for him & he got killed by ahlal kufa specifically ubaidallah bin ziyad & shamr bin aljawshan.
11. Yazeed aso cried after hearing the martyrdom of hussein, & was very upset from this tragic event that took place at karbala'.
12. You're correct about yazeed not wanting him to go to kufa. It was best for hussein to remain under the legitimate rule of yazeed.
13. Many companions went to hussein and said not to go to kufa. Ahlal kufa gave there allegience to hussein then betrayed him. Hussein fell into there trap.
14. Hassan R.A also said that he never liked ahlal kufa because of how they betrayed his father, then himself, and feared that they will do the same to hussein.
15. Hassan sent a letter to hussein for him to not listen to ahlal kufa and not to take there allegience.
16. Ahlal kufa betrayed ali, hassan & then did the same for hussein.
17. In the end it was hussein's ijtihaad to make his decision by accepting the baya made by ahlal kufa.
If you think there is a correction somewhere, please correct me.
Btw for everyone who wants to know who I follow:
I follow sheikh ul islam & muhammad ibn abdul wahab :)
Salemu3alaikum wara7matullah wa barakatu...!!

I think 10 is not quite correct. Hussain never intended to give him allegiance either way. That's like saying he offered to give allegiance just because to save his own life? He stuck with his guns and stuck by the Islam his Grandfather and Father struggled to propagate all over the world. The leader is ultimately cheered for any victory and, so the same goes for an tragedy that befalls on his head. He could've left Hussain alone to do his own thing, but he didn't. He kept on him like a rock, why else did he swap the governor of Kufa with one his dummies and later dictated to him to bring Hussain back to his clutches even after they had reached a settlement.

Yazid's rule was diabolical to say the least.

[mospike]

Asalamualykum All

Regarding Imaama

What have the Shia to say about the blessed sons of Nabi Alayhis salaam (Qasim and Ebrahim radhi Allahu anhum). Surely if imaama was a fundemental part of deen the Allah azza wa jal would have revealed text in relation to them?

Were it that they had to live a full life, how would this impact on the doctrine of Imaama?

[New_Muslim]

Asalamualykum All

Regarding Imaama

What have the Shia to say about the blessed sons of Nabi Alayhis salaam (Qasim and Ebrahim radhi Allahu anhum). Surely if imaama was a fundemental part of deen the Allah azza wa jal would have revealed text in relation to them?

Were it that they had to live a full life, how would this impact on the doctrine of Imaama?

Fair point.

[AussieLebo]

I think 10 is not quite correct. Hussain never intended to give him allegiance either way. That's like saying he offered to give allegiance just because to save his own life? He stuck with his guns and stuck by the Islam his Grandfather and Father struggled to propagate all over the world. The leader is ultimately cheered for any victory and, so the same goes for an tragedy that befalls on his head. He could've left Hussain alone to do his own thing, but he didn't. He kept on him like a rock, why else did he swap the governor of Kufa with one his dummies and later dictated to him to bring Hussain back to his clutches even after they had reached a settlement.

Yazid's rule was diabolical to say the least.

Thanks for your reply. Even though hussein never gave alleigence to yazeed. When he went to kufa, and found out that ahlal kufa were going to fight him, he could've gone back to yazeed, or go back to mecca. The only thing hussein did was not give his bay3a to yazeed. He never fought against yazeed of any sort. Hussein R.A had 2 choices which was to go back ( run away ) or fight as a shaheed which a real believer would do. So he fought against ahlal kufa until he died. Yazeed had nothing to do with this. Ubaidullah bin ziyad was a munafiq and couldn't be trusted with anything, because he killed husseins cousin musa bin akeel. Ahlal kufa did same with musa bin akeel.

Yazeed never ordered to kill hussein, nor did he fight injustice or revolt against yazeed in any way.
"Yazid's rule was diabolical to say the least."
Yazeed's rule was legitimate and all the muslim leaders gave bay3a to him. Hussein was the one who didn't give bay3a to yazeed, then went to mecca & was forced to give bay3a to yazeed, not from yazeed himself, but from the people. After that hussein got his women, children and some companions with him when he went to kufa. Yazeed never followed him nor did he want to attack him in any way. It was ahlal kufa who gave there bay3a to hussein then they betrayed him by killing him.

Yazeed never did anything against hussein. This is important to know. Yazeed & hussein are related in some way also. Yazeed married the daughter of abdullah bin ja'far( ali's brother). So if yazeed was the one who killed hussein why did he marry someone from ahlal bayt? Yazeed was definitely not part of hussein's death.

But as yazeed was not a sa7abi, we don't love him nor hate him. We just leave his judgement up to allah to see if he was a good believer or not. But to say he killed hussein, that's ridiculous. So my position regarding yazeed is neutral. No love or curse goes towards him.

If there are needs for correction, please go ahead.
Salemu3alaikum...!!

[TripolySunni]

Recently there have been attempts by some Shia to try and isolate Sheikh al-Islam ibn Tayymiyah (rah) and claim that he wasn't "Sunni" or he doesn't represent Ahlul-Sunnah and that we must reject him, sadly some laymen online have done that.

If any of you came across such a lame accusation the quickest answer would be to name some of his biggest students, such as:

1- Jamal-ul-Deen, abi al-Hajjaj, Yusuf ibn `Abdul-Rahman al-Mizzi, al-Halabi al-Shafi`i.

2- Abu Al-Fida', `Imad-ul-Deen, Isma`eel bin `Umar ibn Katheer Ibn Daw' ibn Katheer, al-Dimashqi al-Shafi'i.

3-‎ Shams-ul-Deen, Muhammad bin abi Bakr bin Ayyub, ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali.

4- Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qaymaz, Shams-ul-Deen, abu `Abdullah al-Dhahabi al-Dimashqi al-Shafi`i.

Allah have mercy on their souls.

And more! but this outta be enough for any human with a shred of intellect.

Salamu `Aleykum,

[AussieLebo]

Recently there have been attempts by some Shia to try and isolate Sheikh al-Islam ibn Tayymiyah (rah) and claim that he wasn't "Sunni" or he doesn't represent Ahlul-Sunnah and that we must reject him, sadly some laymen online have done that.

If any of you came across such a lame accusation the quickest answer would be to name some of his biggest students, such as:

1- Jamal-ul-Deen, abi al-Hajjaj, Yusuf ibn `Abdul-Rahman al-Mizzi, al-Halabi al-Shafi`i.

2- Abu Al-Fida', `Imad-ul-Deen, Isma`eel bin `Umar ibn Katheer Ibn Daw' ibn Katheer, al-Dimashqi al-Shafi'i.

3-‎ Shams-ul-Deen, Muhammad bin abi Bakr bin Ayyub, ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali.

4- Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qaymaz, Shams-ul-Deen, abu `Abdullah al-Dhahabi al-Dimashqi al-Shafi`i.

Allah have mercy on their souls.

And more! but this outta be enough for any human with a shred of intellect.

Salamu `Aleykum,

What! Sunni's rejecting ibn taymiyyah as a muslim??? This is shameful.
But it's very strange to see how this site says "madhab" and you type in whatever you want. Why do laymen need to know what madhab they're in? Isn't that only for the sheikhs/ scholars of islam?
I don't think anyone here is knowledgeable enough to say he follows and has studied a particular madhab.
Oh well, insha'allah we are able to prove the shi3a doctrine wrong, instead of asking them to prove why they're right. Asking a shi3a to prove imamat is not going anywhere, so it's best for us to try disaprove imamate with depth, I haven't seen a thread on that.

I really think the imamate issue is one of the most important issues between the sunnah & the shi3a, so maybe if someone can show me a thread that talks about imamate, I would be delighted to read.

Salemu3alaikum...!!

[TripolySunni]

What! Sunni's rejecting ibn taymiyyah as a muslim??? This is shameful.
But it's very strange to see how this site says "madhab" and you type in whatever you want. Why do laymen need to know what madhab they're in? Isn't that only for the sheikhs/ scholars of islam?
I don't think anyone here is knowledgeable enough to say he follows and has studied a particular madhab.

Add me on skype instead and I'll correct any misinformation you've been fed "hani.islam88"

[AussieLebo]

Add me on skype instead and I'll correct any misinformation you've been fed "hani.islam88"

I don't use skype or any social networking websites... besides this & youtube.
Why do you have to correct me on skype. Is it difficult to write it here or something?

If I've said something wrong, ofcourse you can correct me. But I think it's best if we have seperate threads that refute each point of the shias, instead of having them mixed up. For e.g. Prove imamate wrong, prove mut'ah wrong, prove historic myths created by the shia wrong.

I just don't see this. I'm just giving advice. I'm not telling anyone to make a thread & spend hard work & time creating one. I'm just focusing on the main shia points & how the layout should be to refute them.

I get fed by sheikh ahmad deedat R.A.H when trying to ponder the christian belief. I like watching debates on qaaf, safa, mustaqilla, watan ( mubashar ) when seeing the shia & sunni differences.
Some sheikhs I listen to are:
- Sheikh mohammad al3areefy
- Sheikh 3adnan al3or3oor
- Sheikh 3uthman alkhamees
- Sheikh khalid alwasaabi
- Sheikh ahmad deedat R.A.H
- Dr Zakir Naik ( Most of his speeches are from deedat ) -- I used to hear some of his lectures a while back.
- And a variety of different egyptian scholars who are pretty knowledgeable.

Do you think these people are great to listen to? Because most my information about islam come from them especially sheikh mohammad al3areefy.

Anyways, I don't want to waste your time akhi. I just find it hard looking for information on a certain topic on this website.
Salemu3alaikum.

[Ahmed-Hani]

Honestly for me you don't even have to debate about the khilafa and the fitnah that took place. If your shia how can you accept Fatimah RA was given a quran longer than her father's PBUH by angel gibril? how can you accept that the 12th imam is al mahdi and he is hiding and that the 11th imam may not even have had a son. how can you accept that God's most perfect creation the prophet RasulAllah PBUH would align himself with so called hypocrites, liars, tyrants, etc. etc. (istaghfurAllah). Most importantly how can you believe RasulAllah pbuh married a woman whom I cannot dare say the things shia say about her, and she was even defended by Allah azza wa jal in the quran.

I can believe Ali RA should have been the first caliph b/c he was righteous and the prophets cousin. I can believe that Muawaiya made some mistakes (siffin, taking caliph from Al-Hasan RA, making a dynasty with Yazid) and that Al-Hasan then Al-Hussein were both in the right. But I will not follow the deviant beliefs of Shiism, and it really goes for all types of Shiism, 12er/ismaili/alwai. The Zaidi "shias" are pretty much sunni except they believe the khilafa should have stayed within the prophets family but they still acknowledge the merits of the rashudin and the legitimacy of their khilafa.

[AussieLebo]

Honestly for me you don't even have to debate about the khilafa and the fitnah that took place. If your shia how can you accept Fatimah RA was given a quran longer than her father's PBUH by angel gibril? how can you accept that the 12th imam is al mahdi and he is hiding and that the 11th imam may not even have had a son. how can you accept that God's most perfect creation the prophet RasulAllah PBUH would align himself with so called hypocrites, liars, tyrants, etc. etc. (istaghfurAllah). Most importantly how can you believe RasulAllah pbuh married a woman whom I cannot dare say the things shia say about her, and she was even defended by Allah azza wa jal in the quran.

I can believe Ali RA should have been the first caliph b/c he was righteous and the prophets cousin. I can believe that Muawaiya made some mistakes (siffin, taking caliph from Al-Hasan RA, making a dynasty with Yazid) and that Al-Hasan then Al-Hussein were both in the right. But I will not follow the deviant beliefs of Shiism, and it really goes for all types of Shiism, 12er/ismaili/alwai. The Zaidi "shias" are pretty much sunni except they believe the khilafa should have stayed within the prophets family but they still acknowledge the merits of the rashudin and the legitimacy of their khilafa.

Yes it is possible that Ali could've been the first calipha, but the ummah knew that abu bakr was the best for the job. But you cannot believe ali should have been the first calipha because abu bakr was.
How can you say mu3awiya R.A took the calipha from al hassan R.A? It was al hassan who gave his bay3a towards mu3awiya and gave the calipha to him which was a great thing prophesized by the prophet. Al hassan brought the ummah back together to love each other. Mu3awiya ruled 20 years in al sham and ahlal bayt didn't have anything against him. Mu3awiya was a great ruler. What is wrong with having yazid to rule? All the leaders accepted yazid to be the next ruler. They knew yazid was going to rule and they gave there allegience towards him. Mu3awiya did a great job, and his son yazeed's rule was according to qur'an and sunnah. He wasn't the greatest, but he did a good job as calipha.
The only problem which happened was that hussein R.A didn't want to give his bay3a to yazeed. Hussein didn't complain about mu3awiya. Ali, hassan and hussein all accepted mu3awiya as a great ruler in al sham. Hussein only refused to give allegience to yazeed. Just to clear your mind -- Yazeed had nothing to do with karbala'.

Feel free to correct anything -- I'm not an infallible imam lol :p
Salemu3alaikum.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

Click to read ==> Shia and Masjid al-Aqsa (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_sheia_aqsa.pdf&chrome=true) Shocking truth

[baytul-herz]

I came across this thread and I must say that all of these arguments are rather weak and are reminiscent of how the kuffar would go into the Qur'an and sunnah and pull out texts that can easily be twisted and played on.

This is basically the methodology of this person,he simply posts fatwas or statements from our ulema and suppose that his interpretations is the correct one.

I won't go through all the thread but I will do the first few pages to show basically what he did throughout the entire thread,then I will show some statements from his scholars who he claims to love so much.


Here is my skype [clip] , if any of you want to debate or have a discussion with me I will be more than happy to. I also added you "tripoly sunni" la2n anta bedak ta7ki 3n al madhab ash-shia wa ma 3ndak 3lm 3n ash shia ow 3n al madhab ahlus sunnah. Inshallah Idha bedek ya3ni , ahlan wa sahlan ya khayi.


Here's a Fatwa on Mutah marriage from the Geniuses of the Twelver Shiite Religion, Grand Ayatullah al Imam al Roohani gives glad tidings to all those fornicating women out there:


This person "tripoly Sunni" is rather inconsistent in his approach when dealing with the Shia due to the fact that his misyar marriage is much worse.

According to the scholars of ahlus sunnah,a male can divorce a women for whatever reason he feels like it without witnesses. This is where the ability to divorce spontaneously comes from,the male will marry a women from KSA (they both know what the marriage is for,she is obviously payed a mahr for the marriage) and when he is ready to divorce her he says the magic talaq sentence that divorces them. Services rendered,sometimes she can be married with him for 2 weeks,sometimes less,sometimes more,the marriage is very common among business men and it usually lasts until they are done with their business trip.

Just take a flight to KSA and see how many sunni girls are selling themselves to rich European men and Arab men who travel there for business. Also if you go to Lebanon where me and tripoly sunni are from,we both know who are usually the religious girls and who are usually the ones who act like Americans.

Go to Beirut,go to the Sunni areas in Lebanon,go to the Sunni areas in Jordan and in Syria you'll see that the Sunni people are usually the one who are more westernized than the shia.

You honestly are trying to compare the women from ba3lbek,zahle,jnub to girls from Beirut and trablos?

You guys are more American than the big mac.






QUESTION?
Question: Is it permissable to make Muta'a with women that constantly announce that they want to sleep with men, and that are famous for their adultrous acts, and to tell them that Muta'a isn't adultry and it is a religious marriage?

ANSWER: Bism allah al rahman al raheem,

It is permissible even if she is a famous adultress with the conditions that She's not in her iddah Period and if she slept with a man that they should agree on the specific alotted time that they would be together for and that the iddah wouldn't be broken.

-end-



Lets go over what the conditions of the fatwa.

1.Her iddah period must be observed before and after.
2.She cannot do adultery or touch other men while married.
3.The mutah contract is stipulated between them.


Also this person isn't even telling you the shuruut (terms) for mutah.

The only person who can do mutah is the women who is divorced or widowed,and also she cannot be in her iddah period and she also must wait her iddah period before getting married again. The girl who has never been married even if she isn't a virgin according to ayatollah sistani and most marja may Allah raise their status must ask her father,and if her father isn't alive must ask her grandfather. This is to stop people from abusing mutah.

The person will ask,is mutah moral?

If mutah removes every single harm that zina produces and Allah has allowed it,then how can it be immoral? If she gets pregnant then child is known due to the iddah period and the marriage contract between them,the STDS and other diseases are removed when you have an iddah period especially because these women who are doing it have already been married or widowed and are responsible adults,most STDs and pregnancies arise from teenagers and young adults.

Mutah with it conditions and laws removes the problems and ill effects that zina produces just like permanent marriage does. This takes care of this guy's "mutah is prostitution" quoting of fatwas.

The prophet SAW would allow us to have relations with the slaves that were captured,we were also allowed to buy and trade them,are you then going to say that the prophet SAW allowed a human sex trade?



Jahil says

So yea it's Amazing these Sexual Fatwas they produce, I mean what Person Says that a Prostitute/Fornicator Has a Iddah period LOL! I mean this guy made a Fatwa for some hardcore Salafies to not only call them Sons of Mutah but call them sons of Prostitutes.


How diluted must a person's intellect be when he is calling something that the prophet SAW allowed as prostitution. How about a little syllogism?

1- Muta3 is prostitution.
2- The prophet SAW allowed Muta3 for 3 days
3- The prophet SAW allowed prostitution for 3 days.

If muta3= prostitution than the syllogism stands and you have left the religion of Islam for applying evil to the nabi sal allahu 3layi wa aali.



AND BTW there is a grammatical error in this Fatwa by the Pure Qurayshi Arabian AhlulBayt Member Al Roohani (LoooL) He wrote the word "Woman" Wrong in Arabic it should be"بالمرأة " instead of "بالمرئة " but what can you say to these Persian who claim they're AhlulBayt Hahaha!

It was probably a typo,what does it matter anyways ? Most of your scholars,oh sorry,all of your hadith scholars that compiled your sihah sittah including your biggest fiqhi scholar abu hanifa was from Persia.

Ghazali,the person who codified and defend ashari kalam and your idiotic sufi tasawwuf is also a Persian.





Ayatullah Muhamad Sadiq Al Husseini al Roohani:

س: هل يجوز الزواج من عدة نساء زواج متعة في آن واحد و ان اقوم بمعاشرتهن في نفس الوقت؟

ج: باسمه جلّت اسمائه
يجوز الزواج من عدة نساء، و يجوز معاشرتهن في نفس الوقت.

Question: Is it possible to marry multiple women at the same time as Mutah Marriage and that I sleep with all of them at the same time?

Answer: Bism allah al rahman al Raheem,
It is permissible to marry several women and to sleep with all of them at the same time.



Try reading the arabic,he isn't talking about threesomes .

He is talking about having relations with your wives at the same time of their marriages,not that he is sleeping with all of them at the same time.





30 السؤال:
توجد روايات تنهي عن التمتع بأكثر من أربع ، وتوجد إلى جانبها روايات تبيح ذلك .. فما هو الحق في المسألة ؟
الفتوى:
الخوئي: ربما تحمل تلك على تركها على الافضل ، والاقتصار على الاربع استحبابا ، والا فلا تحديد في المتعة.

Question: There are some narrations stating the impressibility of Having Mutah(Temporary marriage) with more than four women. However right next to them we find others permitting this ... What is the truth of the matter?

Answer: Maybe The Narrations are just stating that it is Makruh(Hated by Allah but not Haram) to Do Mutah with more than four, and Mustahabb to have it with four of them. However when it comes to Mutah marriage there really is no set limit.

Again,if mutah removes the ill effects of zina then how is it immoral? Also what is wrong with having more than one wife? You sound like a christian attacking polygamy perhaps you should become a maronite and join jaysh al hurr and fight the evil mushrik sayed hassan nasrallah. :D



Salam Aleykum, It Does but You won't see me posting those for several reasons, mainly:

#1 I feel embarrassed when I read them alone in my room, let alone translate & post them publicly.
#2 I'll be banned.



How fake and dramatic can you be honestly?





قال أمير المؤمنين علي رضي الله عنه :

(حَرّم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم خيبر لحوم الحمر الأهلية ، ونكاح المتعة )

انظر التهذيب 2/186 ، الاستبصار 3/142 ، وسائل الشيعة 14/ 441


Ali RAA said: The Prophet PBUH forbade The meat of Donkeys and the Nikah of Mutah on the day of Khaybar.

Al tahtheeb 2/186, Al Istibsar 3/142, Wasael al Shia 14/441.

So Ali RAA also forbade it.

unfortunately another failure on your part,open al istibsar and you'll see that he is only quoting a zaydi hadith and talking about it,not an imami hadith.




Question #465:
I'm a girl aged 15 years, my father is very religious, and I wear full hijab outside, and alhamdulillah (for that), but my father kisses me very often between my breasts or in my mouth or comes from behind me and hugs me and kisses me on my neck, so I tell him: 'are those actions not haram?' then he tells me: 'they are haram if (done) with lust, but I do this to you with fatherly passion, and the Messenger Muhammad used to kiss his daughter, sayyidah Fatimah, on her neck and between her breasts and on her mouth and suck her tongue, so...did the Messenger fall into indecency with his daughter??? No! And if the Messenger did that then this is a permission for any father to do that with his daughter!' [The girl proceeds:] And then he [her father] tells me: 'I don't touch the awrah, which is the front and the back private part, and all that's not an 'awrah' we're allowed to see, touch, or kiss', and [the girl proceeds] he (says that) he does that too out of worry over me from getting lured by young men, (saying) [i.e,. her father] that the girl who surrenders herself to any young man is one deprived of the feelings of love and tenderness at home, so....[and now she's asking Ayatullah Abtahi] is what my father doing with me halal or haram? And if it's haram, how was the Messenger doing that with his daughter sayyidah Fatimah al-Zahraa'? And Thank you on this useful website.

Answer [pay attention to its LENGTH]:
And may Allah's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you. What your father's doing is allowed provided that he abides by what he told you; and that's in his heart, don't think ill of him. And you're welcome."


Now according To this site:
http://shia-show.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html

I'll quote why his "www.abtahi.com" is no longer working:

After our brothers in the Muslim (Sunni) forum "Defending the Sunnah" brought this scandal to light, the Abtahi website first changed his answer, then omitted the question, and then totally pulled down the entire website from cyberspace (to a no return inshallah)!!!!! That only proves how scared they are from their truth being known to the world, particularly their ignorant followers!!!! You can see in what they did the level of shame and embarassment he (who issued that 'fatwa' supposedly) and those working on his website felt after the real Muslims (Sunnis) exposed their Shia filth to the world!!!! We have proofs on the changes that were made to his website before it was completely shut down, and we'll present them soon inshallah).


Either you purposely twisted this or you can't read,or you yourself have a sick mind and think its perverted.

1-The arabic says "fi femi",this does not mean in this context "inside the mouth",as arabs many times and even in our own dialect when we say this we do not mean inside the mouth but father upon the lips.

2- When the arabic says "bayna thadiyy",this does not mean on the breasts or kissing the breasts,this simply means kissing the part below the neck.

3-The father of this girl is kissing her mouth, under her neck ,hugs her,and kiss her neck.

Can someone please explain to me how this is perverted or haram?

Have any of you ever kissed your daughter on her lips? Have any of you ever kissed your daughter on her chest below her neck? Have anyone of you ever hugged your daughter? Have anyone of you ever kissed your daughter's neck?

How is anyone of this the actions of a pedophile father?

In fact this is what the father says " I don't touch the awrah, which is the front and the back private part, and all that's not an 'awrah' we're allowed to see, touch, or kiss',".

Prophet muhammad SAW used to kiss hassan (as) on the lips and hussein (as) on the neck,and when fatima (as) would ask him if he loved hassan (as) more because you kiss him on the lips and hussein (as) on the neck. The prophet SAW would reply I kiss hassan (as) on the lips because he will die from poison and I kiss hussein (as) on the neck because they will behead him.

Kissing on the lips is not perverted ,only people with sick minds think sick things.






164السؤال:


يوجد في مناطق تكون الحالة الاقتصادية فيها سيئة ،
والنساء في هذه المناطق يتمتعن من أجل كسب المال فقط لا من أجل الشهوة .. فهل يجوز التمتع بهن ؟
الفتوى:
يجوز .

Question 164: In some areas where the economic state is bad and some women do mutah only for the sake of getting money in return and not because of Shahwat(Desires) .. Can I do Mutah with Them?

Answer By Ayatullah Sistani: It is permissible.


Oh my god,do you mean to tell me that women in poor countries are getting married because they need a husband to take care of them financially?

Surely this is evil prostitution! Astaghfurallah.

[baytul-herz]

Mutah was banned by umar.




Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta 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 (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested


According to a sahabi imran bin Husain,umar himself banned muta and it was from his own opinion.

Question for you tripoli,do you know more than a sahabi?





Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar


According to jabir ibn abdullah,they practised mutah during the time of the prophet SAW and Abu bakr la,so are you telling me that 2 sahabis are wrong and you're correct?



Sahih Muslim 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 pbuh and durnig the time of Abu Bakr until 'Umar forbade it in the case of 'Amr b. Huraith.


Astaghfurallah,a sahabi trading a handful of dates for a mutah marriage? This is surely evil prostitution.





Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3252:

Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger pbuh permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.

Astaghfurallah,another companion trading his cloak for a mutah marriage? La ilaha il allah .


This person's reponse is that there is a hasan hadith that umar mentioning the prophet SAW banning it a long time ago hence the banning of mutah wasn't from him but rather he was only "rebanning" it,non-sense. Even if this hadith is "hasan",this is shadh as sahih bukhari has many hadith which mention otherwise.


Also you'll find the umuyyad hadith factory mentioning hadith that clearly contradict the hadith that I have mentioned above such as Ali (as) banning mutah,this person tries to misquote shia books claiming that we mention the same,these hadith are not from us but rather our scholars were only quoting zaydi hadith,funny how you missed that part. In the sunni hadith collections this is a clear and obvious fabrication as many sahih hadith in bukhari contradict the polemical hadith used in rebuttals against us,these hadith were fabricated by the umuyyads la to weaken the shia who were against the oppressors.

[baytul-herz22]

Tafseer ibn kathir ,clearly mentioning that this verse in surah an nissa ,verse 24 is talking about mutah.

وقد نزلت الآية ( فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ) ( 2 ) في هذا النوع من الزواج ، حيث ذكر معظم مفسري أهل السنة أن الاستمتاع المقصود في هذه الآية هو نكاح المتعة ، ولكان ابن عباس وأبي بن كعب وسعيد بن جبير يقرأون هذه الآية هكذا : " فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى فآتوهن أجورهن

Sahih bukhari

عن عمران ( رض ) قال : " نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله ففعلناها مع رسول الله ( ص ) ولم ينزل قرآن يحرمه ولم ينه عنها حتى مات ، قال رجل برأيه ما شاء

3mran (narrator) said : The verse of mutah was revealed in the book of allah and we did this with the messenger of allah (saw). And there was not a verse revealed that made this haram nor did the messanger ever forbid it even until his death (saw). He said : This was the willing of a man with his opinion. (umar)

صحيح البخاري ج 6 ص 34 كتاب التفسير باب فمن تمتع بالعمرة إلى الحج

Sahih al bukhari volume 6,page 34.


1- How can hadith abrogate qur'an?
2- How come this companion is saying that the prophet SAW never banned mutah?
3- How come the umuyyads fabricated hadith saying ibn abbas changed his mind?
4- How come the umuyyads fabricated hadith regaring ali (as) forbidding mutah?


You cannot just bring a hasan ahad hadith and make it all go away.



Wa la3nat allah upon the enemies of ahlul bayt (3layhum asalam).

[Maripat]

The Khabees comes to our house and had the temerity to utter things like:

I also added you "tripoly sunni" la2n anta bedak ta7ki 3n al madhab ash-shia wa ma 3ndak 3lm 3n ash shia ow 3n al madhab ahlus sunnah. Inshallah Idha bedek ya3ni , ahlan wa sahlan ya khayi.

What are they thinking? Do they really think that they are dealing with chicken?

I shall implore our brothers in the fold of Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jam'ah to take all steps and precautions to protect our Scholars everywhere against the slaughter and massacre unleashed by the Rafidhah. We should wake up and try to wake up each other for enough damage has already been committed. The Rafidhah confidence is exactly like the Zionist confidence and acts like such.

[jsali]

Assalamu alaikum.
It is funny that you mentioned Zionists,because the only people who support zionists in Lebanon are currently the sunnis and some christians.

Even Hezbolalh who protects the entire country are constantly attacked by the zionist supporting sunnis such as the hariri gang.


Also the arabic which I spoke to him was not insulting nor was it rude,I simply said he did not have knowledge about the shia nor sunni madhab and that if he wished he would speak to me on skype.

And the only person who is "khabees" is the person who lets his religion be driven by emotion and not logic and reason.

A person without logic and reason will make statements such as "The hadith can abrogate the Qur'an".

Allah yahdeena
@ Baytul- herz22. First off show some darn respect. Don't come in here talking on our forums like you own it. It's not yours so show some respect for the people who are answering you and trying to actually make you understand something. If you want to advertise your kufr and came here to argue like your kind usually do then do it somewhere else. If you were smart enough you'd open a book before opening your mouth.

Secondly when it comes to our books don't teach us. We know what Sahih Bukhari says and know that our hadith books actually have explanations and chronological ordering and history behind them. None of our scholars sit and read hadith without tafseer or tareekh involved. Unlike your madhab we have a system. We don't take any hadith at any time to suit our desires not to mention the ongoing "new" "undiscovered" hadiths of yours which are found every day ( might want to check an older edition of your hadith books and match them with the current editions to get my point). I used to be shia at one time and let me tell you just to sit in your presence alone and feel your heart sink into depression and lose all hope in the world itself was enough for me to leave shiaism.

Thirdly there are people better at me and more informed about the beliefs of shias to answer you so I won't argue with you. In my eyes people like you only deserve to be imprisoned to keep your fitna from spreading. Some on this forum are generous enough to take time out of their lives to help you and keep hope in bringing truth to your kind. So thank them and show some decency atleast here.

Fourthly don't compare random people in random countries to the faith itself. People don't represent Islam. Ksa is modern and it has nothing to due with sunnism but rather the westernization that is being spread as is the same with Lebanon. I'm sure no matter what club you party at in lebanon you'll find a mix of religions not just sunnis.

Fifthly even if these Sunni girls are prostituting themselves I'm sure they're doing it for a reason( not pleasure unlike your filthy kind or in public like your people). I don't justify their careers but I know with the situation in the middle east poor widow women with children to feed are resorting to the only thing they can offer.. sex. As for Syria mashallah I have never seen anything of the western world within them and I lived there so don't speak. They don't even have ads for Coca Cola considering your demon leader Bashar al Assad has taken up all the billboards of the country.

Sixthly read the whole thread before talking. You're not the first idiot to show up here acting like you know everything even though all your comments have been refuted before hand. And lastly if you're so much for mutah please give your sister or daughter away in a mutah marriage and call me . I would like to attend to see you stand with a dignified and proud look on your face.

[baytul-herz24]

The Khabees comes to our house and had the temerity to utter things like:


What are they thinking? Do they really think that they are dealing with chicken?

I shall implore our brothers in the fold of Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal Jam'ah to take all steps and precautions to protect our Scholars everywhere against the slaughter and massacre unleashed by the Rafidhah. We should wake up and try to wake up each other for enough damage has already been committed. The Rafidhah confidence is exactly like the Zionist confidence and acts like such.

It is funny that you mentioned Zionists,because the only people who support zionists in Lebanon are currently the sunnis and some christians.

Even Hezbolalh who protects the entire country are constantly attacked by the zionist supporting sunnis such as the hariri gang.


Also the arabic which I spoke to him was not insulting nor was it rude,I simply said he did not have knowledge about the shia nor sunni madhab and that if he wished he would speak to me on skype.

And the only person who is "khabees" is the person who lets his religion be driven by emotion and not logic and reason.

A person without logic and reason will make statements such as "The hadith can abrogate the Qur'an".

Allah yahdeena

[jsali]

It is funny that you mentioned Zionists,because the only people who support zionists in Lebanon are currently the sunnis and some christians.

Even Hezbolalh who protects the entire country are constantly attacked by the zionist supporting sunnis such as the hariri gang.


Also the arabic which I spoke to him was not insulting nor was it rude,I simply said he did not have knowledge about the shia nor sunni madhab and that if he wished he would speak to me on skype.

And the only person who is "khabees" is the person who lets his religion be driven by emotion and not logic and reason.

A person without logic and reason will make statements such as "The hadith can abrogate the Qur'an".

Allah yahdeena

EMOTION. Are you listening to yourself or did you forget that your men sleep with any women off the street and call it faith unlike our men who mashallah can atleast get home to their wives/ ask for the womans hand in marriage and commit to her for life rather than five mins.

[baytul-herz24]

Secondly when it comes to our books don't teach us. We know what Sahih Bukhari says and know that our hadith books actually have explanations and chronological ordering and history behind them. None of our scholars sit and read hadith without tafseer or tareekh involved. Unlike your madhab we have a system.

What system? You guys didn't even write down your hadith until 100-200 years after the passing of the prophet SAW.

Your system is a joke,most of your madhab is structured upon ahad hadith and the weird methods of tawtheeq that are quite laughable.



We don't take any hadith at any time to suit our desires not to mention the ongoing "new" "undiscovered" hadiths of yours which are found every day ( might want to check an older edition of your hadith books and match them with the current editions to get my point). I used to be shia at one time and let me tell you just to sit in your presence alone and feel your heart sink into depression and lose all hope in the world itself was enough for me to leave shiaism.

Care to show us these "new" undiscovered hadith in our books? In fact even if you did it wouldn't be a big deal because this is actually common with ancient Islamic books,there are actually newly discovered hadith in musnad ahmad not too long ago.

and I have read the attacks on shia hadith from tripoly on this thread,on his blog,the attacks on islamic-forum.net,and to be quite frank their arguments are weak and they even came to debate us on this topic only to be humiliated and ran away.

To see the debate, Please visit:
shia chat and type in sunni rijal vs shia rijal in the search box as they won't let me post the link here.



The sunni madhab over emphasies ilm ar rijal due to the fact that its madhab is a madhab of qiyas,silly tawtheeq (tawtheeq of kharijtes because they believe if they lie they are going to hell),and of course qiyas.

And I used to be a sunni,in fact I used to study at darul uloom until allah guided me to the teachings of ahlul bayt (as).



Fifthly even if these Sunni girls are prostituting themselves I'm sure they're doing it for a reason( not pleasure unlike your filthy kind or in public like your people). I don't justify their careers but I know with the situation in the middle east poor widow women with children to feed are resorting to the only thing they can offer.. sex. As for Syria mashallah I have never seen anything of the western world within them and I lived there so don't speak. They don't even have ads for Coca Cola considering your demon leader Bashar al Assad has taken up all the billboards of the country.

Everyone knows in the Arab world that the shias tend to be more religious than the sunnies ,and the sunnies are much more americanized.

If Bashar al assad is a demon I'd hate to see who these american paid salafi dogs are who are fighting him.

Syria,Lebanon(hezbollah),and Iran are the only ones sending weapons to the Palestinians and are the only ones actually fighting the zionists while the sunnies are in the back round yelling mushrik and kafir......

Sunni mujahideen? There are only sunni mujahideen when it comes to fighting shia and let me tell you how many "sunni mujahideen" you can buy with the american dollar.

[baytul-herz24]

EMOTION. Are you listening to yourself or did you forget that your men sleep with any women off the street and call it faith unlike our men who mashallah can atleast get home to their wives/ ask for the womans hand in marriage and commit to her for life rather than five mins.

wasalam ukhti

Last time I checked in lubnan and suriya,the shia men are much more religious and actually marry younger than the sunni men.


Also did you forget that most of your sunni men are americanized and don't even care about Islam to begin with let alone marriage?


I am certain that there are good sunni men and women,in fact I am friends with many of them and respect many sunnies to a high degree and consider them my brothers in faith,but everyone knows including them that the sunnies in lebanon and in many parts of the world are usually the ones who act very westernized .

[Maripat]

It is funny that you mentioned Zionists,because the only people who support zionists in Lebanon are currently the sunnis and some christians.

Seeing the Shia onslaught, slaughter of Sunni Scholars is Pakistan I do not find anything funny in the happenings there. And the comparison between Shia Rafidhah and Zionists is quite apt for both are slaughtering Muslims because they feel that they are the chosen people.


Also the arabic which I spoke to him was not insulting nor was it rude,I simply said he did not have knowledge about the shia nor sunni madhab and that if he wished he would speak to me on skype.
It is not for the first time that a Shia cursed us on face.
I can not take your words on face value - I shall wait brother Tripoli-Sunni's response whether your statement is correct or not.


And the only person who is "khabees" is the person who lets his religion be driven by emotion and not logic and reason.

Our logic, our reason and our emotions are all for Islam. And you are not a friend.

A person without logic and reason will make statements such as "The hadith can abrogate the Qur'an".
A person questioning Hadeeth has left the fold of Islam long ago.

[abdulwahhab]

But it's very strange to see how this site says "madhab" and you type in whatever you want. Why do laymen need to know what madhab they're in? Isn't that only for the sheikhs/ scholars of islam?
I don't think anyone here is knowledgeable enough to say he follows and has studied a particular madhab.

:salam:

"Madhhab" is specified to let people know better where a certain poster is coming from when he asks a question or answers or replies to a question. A Hanafi will give a different response to a Shafi'i about how to pray. Otherwise, we'd all go around in a circle saying that this or that is wrong when we aren't following the same usool - and the fundamental differences between the madhahib are due to the differences in usool.

[sheikh_S]

wasalam ukhti

Last time I checked in lubnan and suriya,the shia men are much more religious and actually marry younger than the sunni men.


Also did you forget that most of your sunni men are americanized and don't even care about Islam to begin with let alone marriage?


I am certain that there are good sunni men and women,in fact I am friends with many of them and respect many sunnies to a high degree and consider them my brothers in faith,but everyone knows including them that the sunnies in lebanon and in many parts of the world are usually the ones who act very westernized .

How do you know that they are more religious, isnt that for Allah to decide. A person can do just a small act which can cause the pleasure of Allah swt. Also when was the last time you checked? And you are just looking at1/2 countries. Look at the wider picture, and even if the shiites are more religous but if you have the wrong aqeedah, then its no point.

Say: Shall We inform you who will be the greatest losers by their works? (103) Those whose effort goeth astray in the life of the world, and yet they reckon that they do good work. (104) Those are they who disbelieve in the revelations of their Lord and in the meeting with Him. Therefore their works are vain, and on the Day of Resurrection We assign no weight to them. (105) That is their reward: hell, because they disbelieved, and made a jest of Our revelations and Our messengers.

[TripolySunni]

@Shia


Just take a flight to KSA and see how many sunni girls are selling themselves to rich European men

Take a trip to the Arabian peninsula and see how many Iranian girls go there for you know what.


You honestly are trying to compare the women from ba3lbek,zahle,jnub to girls from Beirut and trablos?


We don't legalize Zinah in Sunni areas like in Shia areas, so if Zinah is Halal in your areas then obviously you won't see it as immoral.


Lets go over what the conditions of the fatwa.

1.Her iddah period must be observed before and after.
2.She cannot do adultery or touch other men while married.
3.The mutah contract is stipulated between them.

Also this person isn't even telling you the shuruut (terms) for mutah.

We've quoted many Fatwas and the "Shuruut" for your temporary pleasure marriages are quite clear.


The person will ask,is mutah moral?

If mutah removes every single harm that zina produces and Allah has allowed it,then how can it be immoral?

Except Allah banned it so it qualifies as being Zinah.


How diluted must a person's intellect be when he is calling something that the prophet SAW allowed as prostitution. How about a little syllogism?

1- Muta3 is prostitution.
2- The prophet SAW allowed Muta3 for 3 days
3- The prophet SAW allowed prostitution for 3 days.

If muta3= prostitution than the syllogism stands and you have left the religion of Islam for applying evil to the nabi sal allahu 3layi wa aali.

Wait wait, who says what is Haram and what is Halal? Allah right? then if Allah allowed them to do it for three days then it's HALAL.

Do you know what Zinah is? Zinah is any relationship between a man and a woman that does not fit into the rules of Islamic marriage, so if Allah legalized something, then it no longer is Haram nor would it be considered Zinah, when Allah bans it then it becomes Zinah. So when they did it for three days it wasn't Zinah, but now it is Zinah, enjoy.


It was probably a typo,what does it matter anyways ? Most of your scholars,oh sorry,all of your hadith scholars that compiled your sihah sittah including your biggest fiqhi scholar abu hanifa was from Persia.

Ghazali,the person who codified and defend ashari kalam and your idiotic sufi tasawwuf is also a Persian.

Yes we have many good scholars from Persia, Persia only sunk into ignorance and innovations a couple of years ago when the Safawiyyah took over and made the country religion "twelver Shia".


Try reading the arabic,he isn't talking about threesomes .

He is talking about having relations with your wives at the same time of their marriages,not that he is sleeping with all of them at the same time.

I'm sorry if that's how you understand the question.


Again,if mutah removes the ill effects of zina then how is it immoral? Also what is wrong with having more than one wife? You sound like a christian attacking polygamy perhaps you should become a maronite and join jaysh al hurr and fight the evil mushrik sayed hassan nasrallah.

How can having four pious wives in proper marriage be compared with twenty (slave) women of temporary pleasure?


How fake and dramatic can you be honestly?


Just for fun. btw my wife is an ex-Shia who lived in Syria and she knows how "modest" these Mut`ah marriages are, it turned her off greatly.

ect..ect...(you say a lot of things, can't bother replying to most).


Mutah was banned by umar.


Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 43:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Verse of muta 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 (omar) just expressed what his own mind suggested
According to a sahabi imran bin Husain,umar himself banned muta and it was from his own opinion.

Question for you tripoli,do you know more than a sahabi?


As usual, you guys copy a Hadith about Mut`ah of Hajj and say it's about Mut`ah of women.


قال عمرانُ بنُ حُصَينٍ : نزلت آيةُ المُتعةِ في كتاب اللهِ ( يعني مُتعةَ الحجِّ ) . وأمرنا بها رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ . ثم لم تنزل آيةٌ تنسخ آيةَ مُتعةِ الحجِّ . ولم ينه عنها رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ حتى مات . قال رجلٌ برأيه ، بعد ، ما شاء وفي رواية : بمثلِه . غير أنه قال : وفعلْناها مع رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ . ولم يقلْ : وأمرَنا بها .


'Imran b. Husain (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We performed Tamattu' (Hajj and 'Umra combining together) in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and nothing was revealed in the Qur'an (concerning the abrogation of this practice), and whatever a person (Hadhrat 'Umar) said was his personal opinion. 'Imran b. Husain narrated this hadith (in these words also):" Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) performed Hajj Tamattu' and we also performed it along with him." (Sahih Muslim - Book #007, Hadith #2830)



Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar

According to jabir ibn abdullah,they practised mutah during the time of the prophet SAW and Abu bakr la,so are you telling me that 2 sahabis are wrong and you're correct?

Firstly if you're relying on two Sahabis, we can quote MANY Sahabis saying that the Prophet (SAWS) banned it. Secondly `Umar (ra) banned it because he heard that people are still doing it, and since he knows it is Haram then he placed restrictions and informed those who didn't know that it was made Haram.



Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3252:

Sabra Juhanni reported: Allah's Messenger pbuh permitted temporary marriage for us. So I and another person went out and saw a woman of Bana 'Amir, who was like a young long-necked she-camel. We presented ourselves to her (for contracting temporary marriage), whereupon she said: What dower would you give me? I said: My cloak. And my companion also said: My cloak. And the cloak of-my companion was superior to my cloak, but I was younger than he. So when she looked at the cloak of my companion she liked it, and when she cast a glance at me I looked more attractive to her. She then said: Well, you and your cloak are sufficient for me. I remained with her for three nights, and then Allah's Messenger pbuh said: He who has any such woman with whom he had contracted temporary marriage, he should let her off.

Astaghfurallah,another companion trading his cloak for a mutah marriage? La ilaha il allah .

I don't know if you notice, but the narration you quoted actually states at the end the moment when the Prophet (SAWS) banned it.


Also you'll find the umuyyad hadith factory mentioning hadith that clearly contradict the hadith that I have mentioned above such as Ali (as) banning mutah,this person tries to misquote shia books claiming that we mention the same,these hadith are not from us but rather our scholars were only quoting zaydi hadith,funny how you missed that part. In the sunni hadith collections this is a clear and obvious fabrication as many sahih hadith in bukhari contradict the polemical hadith used in rebuttals against us,these hadith were fabricated by the umuyyads la to weaken the shia who were against the oppressors.

Exactly, any Hadith you disagree with, suddenly it becomes fabricated by Umayyads who weren't even alive during the time of Bukhari.

And this is more than enough, the rest is just repetition.

[baytul-herz24]

@Shia



Take a trip to the Arabian peninsula and see how many Iranian girls go there for you know what.



We don't legalize Zinah in Sunni areas like in Shia areas, so if Zinah is Halal in your areas then obviously you won't see it as immoral.



We've quoted many Fatwas and the "Shuruut" for your temporary pleasure marriages are quite clear.



Except Allah banned it so it qualifies as being Zinah.



Wait wait, who says what is Haram and what is Halal? Allah right? then if Allah allowed them to do it for three days then it's HALAL.

Do you know what Zinah is? Zinah is any relationship between a man and a woman that does not fit into the rules of Islamic marriage, so if Allah legalized something, then it no longer is Haram nor would it be considered Zinah, when Allah bans it then it becomes Zinah. So when they did it for three days it wasn't Zinah, but now it is Zinah, enjoy.



Yes we have many good scholars from Persia, Persia only sunk into ignorance and innovations a couple of years ago when the Safawiyyah took over and made the country religion "twelver Shia".



I'm sorry if that's how you understand the question.



How can having four pious wives in proper marriage be compared with twenty (slave) women of temporary pleasure?



Just for fun. btw my wife is an ex-Shia who lived in Syria and she knows how "modest" these Mut`ah marriages are, it turned her off greatly.

ect..ect...(you say a lot of things, can't bother replying to most).



As usual, you guys copy a Hadith about Mut`ah of Hajj and say it's about Mut`ah of women.


قال عمرانُ بنُ حُصَينٍ : نزلت آيةُ المُتعةِ في كتاب اللهِ ( يعني مُتعةَ الحجِّ ) . وأمرنا بها رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ . ثم لم تنزل آيةٌ تنسخ آيةَ مُتعةِ الحجِّ . ولم ينه عنها رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ حتى مات . قال رجلٌ برأيه ، بعد ، ما شاء وفي رواية : بمثلِه . غير أنه قال : وفعلْناها مع رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ . ولم يقلْ : وأمرَنا بها .


'Imran b. Husain (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We performed Tamattu' (Hajj and 'Umra combining together) in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and nothing was revealed in the Qur'an (concerning the abrogation of this practice), and whatever a person (Hadhrat 'Umar) said was his personal opinion. 'Imran b. Husain narrated this hadith (in these words also):" Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) performed Hajj Tamattu' and we also performed it along with him." (Sahih Muslim - Book #007, Hadith #2830)



Firstly if you're relying on two Sahabis, we can quote MANY Sahabis saying that the Prophet (SAWS) banned it. Secondly `Umar (ra) banned it because he heard that people are still doing it, and since he knows it is Haram then he placed restrictions and informed those who didn't know that it was made Haram.



I don't know if you notice, but the narration you quoted actually states at the end the moment when the Prophet (SAWS) banned it.



Exactly, any Hadith you disagree with, suddenly it becomes fabricated by Umayyads who weren't even alive during the time of Bukhari.

And this is more than enough, the rest is just repetition.



Sorry I couldn't respond as the forum banned my IP address.


Regarding the hadith for muta3 al hajj,I posted that hadith by mistake.

However regarding the hadith that mentions umar banning muta3 an nika,then there are many. Anyone who reads these ahadith will get the impression that he himself banned it on his own opinion,also many many ashab were doing mut3 during the prophet's(3) life and during abu bakr's life.

So you cannot bring a single hadith from musannaf or mustadarak that is hasan that mentions umar doing X because the prophet (3) did X when there are a plethora of hadith that strongly suggest he did it on his own opinion.

Regarding what you're saying about mut3 being zina,so are you saying that allah allowed zina as a rukhsa for 3 days? Lol What are you trying to say?


How is mut3 immoral when it removes all the bad effects of zina? There are shuroot that involve asking the wife's permission,asking the permission of the wali,waiting for the iddah period to be over to proect lineage,etc.




I know what your argument is,your argument is that we must use other hadith and combine them in order to get the whole picture,I couldn't agree with you more.

But you're trying to take that hasan hadith that mentions umar banning mut3 because the prophet SAW banned it and trying to combine it with the others that mention him banning it out of his own opinion,you cannot combine 2 ahadith that contradict,and that is the problem.


Regarding ibn abbas changing his mind,or ali (as) changing his mind then all of these lies and be shown to be untrue.


And regarding what you said about iranian women,are you trying to compare iranian/lebanese shi'i girls to Egyptian,Syrian, Jordanian,and saudi girls?

I don't think you want to go there,because we both know how religious these sunni women are and how much zina these girls do.

May allah protect us from that,wasalam.

[New_Muslim]

Sorry I couldn't respond as the forum banned my IP address.


Regarding the hadith for muta3 al hajj,I posted that hadith by mistake.

However regarding the hadith that mentions umar banning muta3 an nika,then there are many. Anyone who reads these ahadith will get the impression that he himself banned it on his own opinion,also many many ashab were doing mut3 during the prophet's(3) life and during abu bakr's life.

So you cannot bring a single hadith from musannaf or mustadarak that is hasan that mentions umar doing X because the prophet (3) did X when there are a plethora of hadith that strongly suggest he did it on his own opinion.

Regarding what you're saying about mut3 being zina,so are you saying that allah allowed zina as a rukhsa for 3 days? Lol What are you trying to say?


How is mut3 immoral when it removes all the bad effects of zina? There are shuroot that involve asking the wife's permission,asking the permission of the wali,waiting for the iddah period to be over to proect lineage,etc.




I know what your argument is,your argument is that we must use other hadith and combine them in order to get the whole picture,I couldn't agree with you more.

But you're trying to take that hasan hadith that mentions umar banning mut3 because the prophet SAW banned it and trying to combine it with the others that mention him banning it out of his own opinion,you cannot combine 2 ahadith that contradict,and that is the problem.


Regarding ibn abbas changing his mind,or ali (as) changing his mind then all of these lies and be shown to be untrue.


And regarding what you said about iranian women,are you trying to compare iranian/lebanese shi'i girls to Egyptian,Syrian, Jordanian,and saudi girls?

I don't think you want to go there,because we both know how religious these sunni women are and how much zina these girls do.

May allah protect us from that,wasalam.

Right, so let me ask you this.

Your mom thinks your ol' man can't hack it no more. So arranges a Muta marriage with 2/3 other guys regardless if she got permission or not. Then spends the evening with them and comes home at Dawn.

How'd you feel? Your f**cked up Muta concept permits that.

Sunni girls are one man orientated gals and if they do indulge in Zinah some will admit their faults later on. The difference is though your Shia airheads are conditioned and encouraged to explore their sexuality with other man free via Mutah like to jump from bandwagon to another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RekEIA7tx0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-utfCfxq5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7AJsqaRGgQ

Your version of Mutah is no different than girls signing up to Playboy.

9893

[baytul-herz24]

Right, so let me ask you this.

Your mom thinks your ol' man can't hack it no more. So arranges a Muta marriage with 2/3 other guys regardless if she got permission or not. Then spends the evening with them and comes home at Dawn.

How'd you feel? Your f**cked up Muta concept permits that.

Sunni girls are one man orientated gals and if they do indulge in Zinah some will admit their faults later on. The difference is though your Shia airheads are conditioned and encouraged to explore their sexuality with other man free via Mutah like to jump from bandwagon to another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RekEIA7tx0k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-utfCfxq5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7AJsqaRGgQ

Your version of Mutah is no different than girls signing up to Playboy.

9893


Care to explain or prove how shi'i girls exploit their "sexuality",anyone from the middle east including tripoly himself that the sunni countries are usually the ones who are westernized.

I mean what do you expect when the sunni countries are basically puppets for the west like egypt,KSA,khaliji countries,etc.

I'm not here to insult any Muslim girls even if they are sunni sisters,I am actually hurt to even see them acting like this,sunni or shi'i.


I'm gathering ahadith on the subject inshallah regarding mut3 and we can discuss them bi ithnillah.

[baytul-herz24]

Ok lets go step by step inshallah so we can understand this issue fully.

It is well known even among the "sunni" ulema (they were not called "sunni" during that time) that many companions held that mut3 was considered permitted and allowed.

We have hadith clearly from ibn abbas for example who professed it,as well as from Asma bint abu bakr,and many others. No one disagrees that Ibn abbas believed in it,we have clear hadith in bukhari and muslim where he defended it and professed it. What the modern day sunnies and shias disagree on is weather or not he changed his opinion. The sunnies try to argue using this hadith:

1207 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَنْبَأَنَا مَعْمَرٌ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَاهُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَبَلَغَهُ أَنَّهُ رَخَّصَ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْأَهْلِيَّةِ

This hadith is also found in Muslim.

It essentially says that Ibn abbas changed his mind when ali (as) corrected him,however we know this hadith is obviously not understood properly because Ibn abbas including many of the salaf held that it was allowed even after the 4 khulafa.

Lets see what the ulema from the sunnies say.

Ibn Hazm:
: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير
وسائر فقهاء مكة

"And it is established that a group of the salaf declared it Halal after Rasulullah. From them are Asmaa’ bint Abi Bakr, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah, Amru ibn Hurayth, Abu Sa’id, Salamah, and the children of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf.

and from the tabi'een :

Taawus,and 3taa,and s3eed ibn khubayr,and the fuqaha of mecca" End quote

Ibn hajr al asqalani says in his fathul baari :

أَصْحَاب اِبْن عَبَّاس مِنْ أَهْل مَكَّة وَالْيَمَن عَلَى إِبَاحَتهَا , ثُمَّ اِتَّفَقَ فُقَهَاء الْأَمْصَار عَلَى تَحْرِيمهَا
“The companions of Ibn ‘Abbas from the people of Makkah and Yemen held that it was permitted, then there was agreement of the jurists of the later times that it was forbidden.” [Fathul-Bari]


Shaykh ash-Shafi'i also believed that the ban at khaybar was also temporary,and then said that it was banned AGAIN by umar.


. Imam Al-’Ibadi reports in his Tabaqat from Imam Ash-Shafi’i that he stated,

“There is nothing in Islam that was permitted then forbidden, then permitted then forbidden, except for muta’ah.”


Did ibn abbas change his mind?



“The people of Makkan and Yemen report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he permitted [muta'ah], and it is reported from him that he recanted this opinion, though these chains have weakness in them. And he permission for it is what is most authentic from him, and it is the madh-hab of the Shi’iah.” ((Quoted by Imam Ash-Shawkani in Nayl Al-Awtar ))

Then we further read.


Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “We did muta’ah giving a handful of dates or flour as dower during the lifetime of Rasulullah and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar had forbidden it in the case of ‘Amr ibn Hurayth.


The early sunni response as well as the shia reponse is that the hadith that mention Ali (as) mentioning mut3 not being allowed was in fact a temporary halt of the hukm,and not a complete dis allowance. We do not say what tripoly says,that "allah allowed prostitution for 3 days" wa naouthubillah.


Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani (rahimahullah) comments upon this quote of Ibn Hazm in his Talkhis Al-Habir stating,

As for what is mentioned from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr then Imam An-Nasa’i reports from the way of Muslim Al-Qrri who said, “I entered upon Asma’ bint Abi Bakr and we asked her regarding muta’ah with women and she said ‘We did it during the life of Rasulullah (‘alayhis salam).” ((Nasa’i 5540 ))




We also know that many tabi'en held that mut3 was allowed as shown in my above qoutes,we also know and the sunni ulema agree that the meccan school as well as many students of malik held that mut3 was not in fact permanently banned.


Ahadith upon ahadith upon ahadith mention that umar was the one who banned it and actually made the mistake thinking it was a permanent ban.

So if you bring a hadith mentioning umar doing it because the prophet SAW did it,then you are mistaken and so is umar,the prophet SAW did not ban it indefintely as is proven and believed by the meccan school and the companions of imam ali (as).



The shi'i leaning companion jabir ibn abdullah also is quoted in sahih muslim saying :


و حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ قَالَ عَطَاءٌ قَدِمَ جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُعْتَمِرًا فَجِئْنَاهُ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ فَسَأَلَهُ الْقَوْمُ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ ثُمَّ ذَكَرُوا الْمُتْعَةَ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ اسْتَمْتَعْنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ

Ibn Jurayj reported from ‘Ataa’ that Jabir ibn Abdullah came to perform Umrah and we came to his abode. The people asked him about different things, then they mentioned the issue of muta’ah. Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “Yes, we performed muta’ah during the life of Rasulullah, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar.”

[Sahih Muslim 1405, some electronic editions 2496]



Some people were saying to ibn masu'd that mut3 is banned ,he responded in sahih muslim

“Rasulullah allowed us to marry women for a stipulated period and then Ibn Mas’ud recited:

“Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like the transgressors.” [Sahih Muslim]


Mut3 in the qur'an

Many people from the sunnis,and the shia also profess that mut3 is also in the qur'an,also ibn katheer holds this opinion and actually relates traditions on this point. Moving past that we also see in this book that he also considered mut3 allowed as well as in the Qur'an

Also in the Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaq that ‘Ataa’ said that Ibn ‘Abbas saw that muta’ah was permitted and he recited:

والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم كتاب الله عليكم وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.




Imam Al-Bukhari narrates:

Narrated Abdullah ” We used to participate in holy wars conducted by the prophet and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves”? But the prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.” O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud “We used to participate in Jihad conducted by the Prophet (‘alayhis salam) and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.

“O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.”


What's funny is the fact that shafi'i claims that hadith can abrogate qur'an.



Any hadith you bring that mentions rasuallah SAW banning mut3 until the day of judgement is shadh compared to the amount of scholars and salaf who allowed mut3 including all of the scholars of mecca.

You cannot play the usul game when it suits you and then not allow usul to be used against you.

So we have established that :

1. The qur'an speaks about mut3.
2.The scholars of mecca held it to be valid
3. The scholars of medina also held it to be valid according to many sunni ulema,imam jafar as sadiq (as) also was known to allow it.
4. The sunni tabari school held it to be valid.
5. Many companions held it to be valid and claim umar banned it.

[molwisaab]

Ok lets go step by step inshallah so we can understand this issue fully.

It is well known even among the "sunni" ulema (they were not called "sunni" during that time) that many companions held that mut3 was considered permitted and allowed.

We have hadith clearly from ibn abbas for example who professed it,as well as from Asma bint abu bakr,and many others. No one disagrees that Ibn abbas believed in it,we have clear hadith in bukhari and muslim where he defended it and professed it. What the modern day sunnies and shias disagree on is weather or not he changed his opinion. The sunnies try to argue using this hadith:

1207 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَنْبَأَنَا مَعْمَرٌ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَاهُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَبَلَغَهُ أَنَّهُ رَخَّصَ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْأَهْلِيَّةِ

This hadith is also found in Muslim.

It essentially says that Ibn abbas changed his mind when ali (as) corrected him,however we know this hadith is obviously not understood properly because Ibn abbas including many of the salaf held that it was allowed even after the 4 khulafa.

Lets see what the ulema from the sunnies say.

Ibn Hazm:
: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير
وسائر فقهاء مكة

"And it is established that a group of the salaf declared it Halal after Rasulullah. From them are Asmaa’ bint Abi Bakr, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah, Amru ibn Hurayth, Abu Sa’id, Salamah, and the children of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf.

and from the tabi'een :

Taawus,and 3taa,and s3eed ibn khubayr,and the fuqaha of mecca" End quote

Ibn hajr al asqalani says in his fathul baari :

أَصْحَاب اِبْن عَبَّاس مِنْ أَهْل مَكَّة وَالْيَمَن عَلَى إِبَاحَتهَا , ثُمَّ اِتَّفَقَ فُقَهَاء الْأَمْصَار عَلَى تَحْرِيمهَا
“The companions of Ibn ‘Abbas from the people of Makkah and Yemen held that it was permitted, then there was agreement of the jurists of the later times that it was forbidden.” [Fathul-Bari]


Shaykh ash-Shafi'i also believed that the ban at khaybar was also temporary,and then said that it was banned AGAIN by umar.


. Imam Al-’Ibadi reports in his Tabaqat from Imam Ash-Shafi’i that he stated,

“There is nothing in Islam that was permitted then forbidden, then permitted then forbidden, except for muta’ah.”


Did ibn abbas change his mind?



“The people of Makkan and Yemen report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he permitted [muta'ah], and it is reported from him that he recanted this opinion, though these chains have weakness in them. And he permission for it is what is most authentic from him, and it is the madh-hab of the Shi’iah.” ((Quoted by Imam Ash-Shawkani in Nayl Al-Awtar ))

Then we further read.


Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “We did muta’ah giving a handful of dates or flour as dower during the lifetime of Rasulullah and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar had forbidden it in the case of ‘Amr ibn Hurayth.


The early sunni response as well as the shia reponse is that the hadith that mention Ali (as) mentioning mut3 not being allowed was in fact a temporary halt of the hukm,and not a complete dis allowance. We do not say what tripoly says,that "allah allowed prostitution for 3 days" wa naouthubillah.


Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani (rahimahullah) comments upon this quote of Ibn Hazm in his Talkhis Al-Habir stating,

As for what is mentioned from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr then Imam An-Nasa’i reports from the way of Muslim Al-Qrri who said, “I entered upon Asma’ bint Abi Bakr and we asked her regarding muta’ah with women and she said ‘We did it during the life of Rasulullah (‘alayhis salam).” ((Nasa’i 5540 ))




We also know that many tabi'en held that mut3 was allowed as shown in my above qoutes,we also know and the sunni ulema agree that the meccan school as well as many students of malik held that mut3 was not in fact permanently banned.


Ahadith upon ahadith upon ahadith mention that umar was the one who banned it and actually made the mistake thinking it was a permanent ban.

So if you bring a hadith mentioning umar doing it because the prophet SAW did it,then you are mistaken and so is umar,the prophet SAW did not ban it indefintely as is proven and believed by the meccan school and the companions of imam ali (as).



The shi'i leaning companion jabir ibn abdullah also is quoted in sahih muslim saying :


و حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ قَالَ عَطَاءٌ قَدِمَ جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُعْتَمِرًا فَجِئْنَاهُ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ فَسَأَلَهُ الْقَوْمُ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ ثُمَّ ذَكَرُوا الْمُتْعَةَ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ اسْتَمْتَعْنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ

Ibn Jurayj reported from ‘Ataa’ that Jabir ibn Abdullah came to perform Umrah and we came to his abode. The people asked him about different things, then they mentioned the issue of muta’ah. Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “Yes, we performed muta’ah during the life of Rasulullah, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar.”

[Sahih Muslim 1405, some electronic editions 2496]



Some people were saying to ibn masu'd that mut3 is banned ,he responded in sahih muslim

“Rasulullah allowed us to marry women for a stipulated period and then Ibn Mas’ud recited:

“Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like the transgressors.” [Sahih Muslim]


Mut3 in the qur'an

Many people from the sunnis,and the shia also profess that mut3 is also in the qur'an,also ibn katheer holds this opinion and actually relates traditions on this point. Moving past that we also see in this book that he also considered mut3 allowed as well as in the Qur'an

Also in the Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaq that ‘Ataa’ said that Ibn ‘Abbas saw that muta’ah was permitted and he recited:

والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم كتاب الله عليكم وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.




Imam Al-Bukhari narrates:

Narrated Abdullah ” We used to participate in holy wars conducted by the prophet and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves”? But the prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.” O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud “We used to participate in Jihad conducted by the Prophet (‘alayhis salam) and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.

“O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.”


What's funny is the fact that shafi'i claims that hadith can abrogate qur'an.



Any hadith you bring that mentions rasuallah SAW banning mut3 until the day of judgement is shadh compared to the amount of scholars and salaf who allowed mut3 including all of the scholars of mecca.

You cannot play the usul game when it suits you and then not allow usul to be used against you.

So we have established that :

1. The qur'an speaks about mut3.
2.The scholars of mecca held it to be valid
3. The scholars of medina also held it to be valid according to many sunni ulema,imam jafar as sadiq (as) also was known to allow it.
4. The sunni tabari school held it to be valid.
5. Many companions held it to be valid and claim umar banned it.

Why is there shi'ite as a mazhab, shi'ites should choose Non Muslim.

[molwisaab]

What could be worse then to believe a kaafir like khumaini to be your leader.

[Sultaan]

It is better to debate the Baatini and Shirki aq'aid of the Rafidha and their takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar and their tafdheel, by their actions and words of the Imams of kufr over them, than fiqhi matters like mut'a.


I mean what do you expect when the sunni countries are basically puppets for the west like egypt,KSA,khaliji countries,etc.

These puppet regimes and their palace scholars were confronted by hundreds of Sunni shuyookh and tens of thousands of Sunnis for centuries up to our time unlike the deafening silence from your hypocritical Lebanese Rafidhi ilk like Nasrallah and Berri who were totally silent on the Afghani and Iraqi Rafidha who rode to power on American tanks, as was also the case with the Safawi Iranian regime, which even fought on the ground with the Americans in Afghanistan, than your ilk hypocritically declare all the Syrian opposition as traitors from day one. Why the hypocrisy and insincerity? Your ilk like Hezbollah also make takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar(Ayat ash-Shaytaan Afif Nabusli of Hezbollah even boasts about this), while favouring the imams of kufr like the Saleebi, Michel Aoun, who attacks constantly and the Imam of kufr, Bashar, "la ilah illa Bashar", "Bashar Akbar", prostrating to the pictures of Bashar, and the kufr of the shabeeha of Bashar, who even come to Al-Manar and utter kufr without condemnation. This is how vile the Rafidha are, takfeer of the shaykhan and favouring the imams of kufr like Bashar and Hafez, Michel Aoun, the Maronite archbishop, the Americans in Iraq, your Arab secularist allies.

[New_Muslim]

Care to explain or prove how shi'i girls exploit their "sexuality",anyone from the middle east including tripoly himself that the sunni countries are usually the ones who are westernized.

I mean what do you expect when the sunni countries are basically puppets for the west like egypt,KSA,khaliji countries,etc.

I'm not here to insult any Muslim girls even if they are sunni sisters,I am actually hurt to even see them acting like this,sunni or shi'i.


I'm gathering ahadith on the subject inshallah regarding mut3 and we can discuss them bi ithnillah.

Answer the question I put forward. If your mom decided to such a proposal? Would you be all totally gung-ho about it considering it's ENCOURAGED in Shiaism?

By exploiting their sexuality, I mean they're whores - simple. As I said Mutah gives a girl the pretense freedom to go out and share their sexual desires with anyone whom they wish. I am talking about how it can strictly be exploited and this is what Shia dames do. See the video above. ;)

The only reason it appears Sunni dames go out and indulge in worldly affairs is because the Middle East is dominated by Sunnis than Shias. Simple ratio really.

The distinction I am making it's one thing to go out and commit Zina when Allah has forbidden it and going around being a nymphomaniac quality pile of trash = Shia girls who use Mutam system to Rock N' Roll.

[Sultaan]

Also, Baytul-Herz, Ibn Abbas believed in the Iman of A'isha and made tarahhum upon her, as he did with Abu Bakr and Umar, so you are obligated by this point much more than a trivial matter like mut'ah, while your deviant sect makes takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar and you Lebanese Rafidha favour the likes of Michel Aoun over them!!

[AbdulQadir90]

Scandalous Shia "Shahih Hadith"

And Ibn Babawayh and Barqi have narrated through reliable chains of narrators from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) that when the Qaim of Aale Muhammad will reappear, he will enliven Ayesha and punish her and take the revenge for Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.). The narrator asked, “May I be sacrificed on you, why would he punish her?”
http://www.*************/hayat-al-qulub-vol2-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/

hrough reliable chains of narrators it is narrated from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that the Messenger of Allah (S) married Ayesha in the month of Shawwal. Also through reliable chains of narrators it is narrated from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) that one night the Holy Prophet (S) was sleeping with Ayesha.



He arose during the night and began to pray the supererogatory prayers. When Ayesha awoke, she did not see the Prophet on his bed. She thought that he must have gone So she arose in fury and began to search for the Prophet. Suddenly she placed her foot on the neck of the Prophet when he was weeping in Sajdah and imploring the Lord:
[/B]to his slave girl. [B]

“My body and soul and all prostrate to You. And my heart has brought faith on You. I confess for all the bounties from You to me and I confess to all sins and I have done and oppressed my soul to forgive me. "

[New_Muslim]

Ok lets go step by step inshallah so we can understand this issue fully.

It is well known even among the "sunni" ulema (they were not called "sunni" during that time) that many companions held that mut3 was considered permitted and allowed.

We have hadith clearly from ibn abbas for example who professed it,as well as from Asma bint abu bakr,and many others. No one disagrees that Ibn abbas believed in it,we have clear hadith in bukhari and muslim where he defended it and professed it. What the modern day sunnies and shias disagree on is weather or not he changed his opinion. The sunnies try to argue using this hadith:

1207 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَنْبَأَنَا مَعْمَرٌ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ ابْنَيْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ أَبِيهِمَا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَاهُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَبَلَغَهُ أَنَّهُ رَخَّصَ فِي مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ نَهَى عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الْأَهْلِيَّةِ

This hadith is also found in Muslim.

It essentially says that Ibn abbas changed his mind when ali (as) corrected him,however we know this hadith is obviously not understood properly because Ibn abbas including many of the salaf held that it was allowed even after the 4 khulafa.

Lets see what the ulema from the sunnies say.

Ibn Hazm:
: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير
وسائر فقهاء مكة

"And it is established that a group of the salaf declared it Halal after Rasulullah. From them are Asmaa’ bint Abi Bakr, Jabir ibn Abdullah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah, Amru ibn Hurayth, Abu Sa’id, Salamah, and the children of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf.

and from the tabi'een :

Taawus,and 3taa,and s3eed ibn khubayr,and the fuqaha of mecca" End quote

Ibn hajr al asqalani says in his fathul baari :

أَصْحَاب اِبْن عَبَّاس مِنْ أَهْل مَكَّة وَالْيَمَن عَلَى إِبَاحَتهَا , ثُمَّ اِتَّفَقَ فُقَهَاء الْأَمْصَار عَلَى تَحْرِيمهَا
“The companions of Ibn ‘Abbas from the people of Makkah and Yemen held that it was permitted, then there was agreement of the jurists of the later times that it was forbidden.” [Fathul-Bari]


Shaykh ash-Shafi'i also believed that the ban at khaybar was also temporary,and then said that it was banned AGAIN by umar.


. Imam Al-’Ibadi reports in his Tabaqat from Imam Ash-Shafi’i that he stated,

“There is nothing in Islam that was permitted then forbidden, then permitted then forbidden, except for muta’ah.”


Did ibn abbas change his mind?



“The people of Makkan and Yemen report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he permitted [muta'ah], and it is reported from him that he recanted this opinion, though these chains have weakness in them. And he permission for it is what is most authentic from him, and it is the madh-hab of the Shi’iah.” ((Quoted by Imam Ash-Shawkani in Nayl Al-Awtar ))

Then we further read.


Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “We did muta’ah giving a handful of dates or flour as dower during the lifetime of Rasulullah and during the time of Abu Bakr until ‘Umar had forbidden it in the case of ‘Amr ibn Hurayth.


The early sunni response as well as the shia reponse is that the hadith that mention Ali (as) mentioning mut3 not being allowed was in fact a temporary halt of the hukm,and not a complete dis allowance. We do not say what tripoly says,that "allah allowed prostitution for 3 days" wa naouthubillah.


Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani (rahimahullah) comments upon this quote of Ibn Hazm in his Talkhis Al-Habir stating,

As for what is mentioned from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr then Imam An-Nasa’i reports from the way of Muslim Al-Qrri who said, “I entered upon Asma’ bint Abi Bakr and we asked her regarding muta’ah with women and she said ‘We did it during the life of Rasulullah (‘alayhis salam).” ((Nasa’i 5540 ))




We also know that many tabi'en held that mut3 was allowed as shown in my above qoutes,we also know and the sunni ulema agree that the meccan school as well as many students of malik held that mut3 was not in fact permanently banned.


Ahadith upon ahadith upon ahadith mention that umar was the one who banned it and actually made the mistake thinking it was a permanent ban.

So if you bring a hadith mentioning umar doing it because the prophet SAW did it,then you are mistaken and so is umar,the prophet SAW did not ban it indefintely as is proven and believed by the meccan school and the companions of imam ali (as).



The shi'i leaning companion jabir ibn abdullah also is quoted in sahih muslim saying :


و حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ قَالَ عَطَاءٌ قَدِمَ جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُعْتَمِرًا فَجِئْنَاهُ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ فَسَأَلَهُ الْقَوْمُ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ ثُمَّ ذَكَرُوا الْمُتْعَةَ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ اسْتَمْتَعْنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ

Ibn Jurayj reported from ‘Ataa’ that Jabir ibn Abdullah came to perform Umrah and we came to his abode. The people asked him about different things, then they mentioned the issue of muta’ah. Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “Yes, we performed muta’ah during the life of Rasulullah, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar.”

[Sahih Muslim 1405, some electronic editions 2496]



Some people were saying to ibn masu'd that mut3 is banned ,he responded in sahih muslim

“Rasulullah allowed us to marry women for a stipulated period and then Ibn Mas’ud recited:

“Those who believe do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Allah does not like the transgressors.” [Sahih Muslim]


Mut3 in the qur'an

Many people from the sunnis,and the shia also profess that mut3 is also in the qur'an,also ibn katheer holds this opinion and actually relates traditions on this point. Moving past that we also see in this book that he also considered mut3 allowed as well as in the Qur'an

Also in the Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaq that ‘Ataa’ said that Ibn ‘Abbas saw that muta’ah was permitted and he recited:

والمحصنات من النساء إلا ما ملكت أيمانكم كتاب الله عليكم وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم أن تبتغوا بأموالكم محصنين غير مسافحين فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة ولا جناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة إن الله كان عليما حكيما
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.




Imam Al-Bukhari narrates:

Narrated Abdullah ” We used to participate in holy wars conducted by the prophet and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves”? But the prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.” O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud “We used to participate in Jihad conducted by the Prophet (‘alayhis salam) and we had no women with us. So we said ( to the prophet ) shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and therefore he allowed us to marry a woman ( temporarily ) by giving her even a garment, and then the prophet recited.

“O you who believe ! Do not make unlawful the good things, which God has made lawful for you.”


What's funny is the fact that shafi'i claims that hadith can abrogate qur'an.



Any hadith you bring that mentions rasuallah SAW banning mut3 until the day of judgement is shadh compared to the amount of scholars and salaf who allowed mut3 including all of the scholars of mecca.

You cannot play the usul game when it suits you and then not allow usul to be used against you.

So we have established that :

1. The qur'an speaks about mut3.
2.The scholars of mecca held it to be valid
3. The scholars of medina also held it to be valid according to many sunni ulema,imam jafar as sadiq (as) also was known to allow it.
4. The sunni tabari school held it to be valid.
5. Many companions held it to be valid and claim umar banned it.

No need to give us history lessons. We know Mutah was once permissible as was Alchohol. The majority of our Sunni scholars shave forbidden and justifiably too. It's like the majority of your stinkin' Ayatullahs (may Iblees be pleased with hem) claim Aisha and Umar (RA)are the murderers of the Ahlul Bhayt (RA) whilst some unbelievably refuse to believe such evil notions.

I can and many of bredrins here can show you where numerous of your scholars (or ex-scholars?) have confirmed that even an orgy is permissible.

Observe:

http://sunniforum.ne...ead.php?t=10835 - read

It gets better:

“One who engages in Mutah once in his lifetime reaches the status of Imam Al-Hussain. One who engages in it twice becomes equal in status to Imam Al-Hasan. The one who performs it three times reaches the position of Imam Ali. And he who practices it four times acquires the level and position of the Prophet Muhammad.”

Source: (Furoo al-Kafi)

This deserves *LOL* (literally).

Oh, yes indeed! Isn't that a kick in the lug-knuts? If you're incapable of reading or understanding Arabic. I'm sure one of my bredrins will lend a hand....as in assistance dude not to help you get off on one (highlight)! :P

FYI, do your research properly the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) banned it.

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.” [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee’ Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

“I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.” [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

“O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah 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 had permitted it after forbidding it.” [Ibn Majah]

Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Numayr who said:

“My father had narrated to us according to Ubaidullah according to Ibn shahab according to Alhassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad bin Ali according to their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn Abbas being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, ‘wait Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic camels.’” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

“In the year of Autas, Allah’s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.” [Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“At the battle of Khaybar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mutah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.” [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa’i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

“O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

Sabrah bin Ma’ bad al-Jihani reported:

“I went forth with the Prophet for the conquest of Mecca, and he allowed us Mutah with women. But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah.”

========================

The Hadiths above confirm even in the latter years of Islam. Omar and Ali (RA) reminded the Ummah not to engage in such a thing and if you are a Muslim like Shias claim then submit to the truth, submit to the wisdom of the Prophet, his companion and the you claim was your divine appointed Imam; Ali (RA).

Submit to the fact that you must keep your private part exclusive to one women only, preferably at least. ;)

[New_Muslim]

Scandalous Shia "Shahih Hadith"

And Ibn Babawayh and Barqi have narrated through reliable chains of narrators from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) that when the Qaim of Aale Muhammad will reappear, he will enliven Ayesha and punish her and take the revenge for Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.). The narrator asked, “May I be sacrificed on you, why would he punish her?”
http://www.*************/hayat-al-qulub-vol2-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/

hrough reliable chains of narrators it is narrated from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that the Messenger of Allah (S) married Ayesha in the month of Shawwal. Also through reliable chains of narrators it is narrated from Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) that one night the Holy Prophet (S) was sleeping with Ayesha.



He arose during the night and began to pray the supererogatory prayers. When Ayesha awoke, she did not see the Prophet on his bed. She thought that he must have gone So she arose in fury and began to search for the Prophet. Suddenly she placed her foot on the neck of the Prophet when he was weeping in Sajdah and imploring the Lord:
[/B]to his slave girl. [B]

“My body and soul and all prostrate to You. And my heart has brought faith on You. I confess for all the bounties from You to me and I confess to all sins and I have done and oppressed my soul to forgive me. "

Is this what Ayesha (RA) said to the Prophet (SAW)?

[baytul-herz24]

No need to give us history lessons. We know Mutah was once permissible as was Alchohol. The majority of our Sunni scholars shave forbidden and justifiably too. It's like the majority of your stinkin' Ayatullahs (may Iblees be pleased with hem) claim Aisha and Umar (RA)are the murderers of the Ahlul Bhayt (RA) whilst some unbelievably refuse to believe such evil notions.

I can and many of bredrins here can show you where numerous of your scholars (or ex-scholars?) have confirmed that even an orgy is permissible.

Observe:

http://sunniforum.ne...ead.php?t=10835 - read

It gets better:

“One who engages in Mutah once in his lifetime reaches the status of Imam Al-Hussain. One who engages in it twice becomes equal in status to Imam Al-Hasan. The one who performs it three times reaches the position of Imam Ali. And he who practices it four times acquires the level and position of the Prophet Muhammad.”

Source: (Furoo al-Kafi)

This deserves *LOL* (literally).

Oh, yes indeed! Isn't that a kick in the lug-knuts? If you're incapable of reading or understanding Arabic. I'm sure one of my bredrins will lend a hand....as in assistance dude not to help you get off on one (highlight)! :P

FYI, do your research properly the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) banned it.

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“O people, I had permitted you Mutah before, [but now] whoever of you has any part in it currently must part with her, and do not take back anything which you may have given them, as Allah Exalted and Majestic has forbidden it until the day of resurrection.” [Muslim, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, and Darimi]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said:

“The Messenger of Allah had forbidden Mutah on the day of Khaybar and had forbidden the eating of the meat of domestic camels.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizy, Ibn Majah, Nasa`i, Tahawy, Shafi’i, Bayhaqy, and Hazimy]

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said to a man who was engaging in Mutah:

“You are a straying person, the Messenger of Allah has forbidden temporary marriage and the meat of domestic camels on the day of Khaybar.” [Muslim and Bayhaqy]

A man called Rabee’ Bin Sabra said to Umar bin Abdul Aziz:

“I testify that according to my father that it happened that the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it [Mutah] on the farewell pilgrimage.” [Abu Dawood and Imam Ahmad]

According to Abu Huraira:

The Messenger of Allah had forbidden or abolished temporary marriage, its marriage and its divorce, its waiting period, and its inheritance. [DarQutny, Ishaq Bin Rahwiya, and Ibn Habban]

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was given the Caliphate, he thanked Allah Most High and praised Him and said:

“O people, the Messenger of Allah had permitted Mutah 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 had permitted it after forbidding it.” [Ibn Majah]

Imam Muslim has narrated that according to Mohammad Bin Abdullah Bin Numayr who said:

“My father had narrated to us according to Ubaidullah according to Ibn shahab according to Alhassan and Abdullah the sons of Mohammad bin Ali according to their father according to Ali that he heard Ibn Abbas being lenient towards temporary marriage, so he said, ‘wait Ibn Abbas, the Messenger of Allah had forbidden it on the day of Khaybar when he also prohibited the meat of domestic camels.’” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:

“In the year of Autas, Allah’s Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but he prohibited it afterwards.” [Sahih Muslim]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“Allah’s Messenger forbade the temporary marriage in the year of Khaybar.” [Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari]

Narrated Ali (رضّى الله عنه):

“At the battle of Khaybar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (i.e Mutah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses.” [Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ahmad, An-Nasa’i, At-Termidhi and Ibn Majah have all collected it]

It was narrated from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that:

The Messenger of Allah forbade Mutah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade Mutah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys. [Narrated by Bukhari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.]

It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhanithat his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allah who said:

“O people, I used to allow you to engage in Mutah marriages, but now Allah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a Mutah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.” [Narrated by Muslim, 1406.]

Sabrah bin Ma’ bad al-Jihani reported:

“I went forth with the Prophet for the conquest of Mecca, and he allowed us Mutah with women. But we had not even left the city [yet] when it was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah.”

========================

The Hadiths above confirm even in the latter years of Islam. Omar and Ali (RA) reminded the Ummah not to engage in such a thing and if you are a Muslim like Shias claim then submit to the truth, submit to the wisdom of the Prophet, his companion and the you claim was your divine appointed Imam; Ali (RA).

Submit to the fact that you must keep your private part exclusive to one women only, preferably at least. ;)


Most of your ahadith have irsal,the"sunnies" didn't even start writing down their ahadith till a century later,what do you expect?

And all of those ahadith that you posted are shadh(odd/contradicted),or they are athar,or they are weak like your aql habibi.


You guys didn't respond to anything that I posted ,all you did was insult and call shi'i women whores,kind of ironic lol.


Sunnies do misyar marriage like colonel sanders cooks chicken,have you been to egypt? Do you know how many clubs and urfi marriages go on there?

You people sound like christians attacking us for polygamy,aren't you aware that we are allowed to have sexual relations with captured slave girls? Also we are allowed to sell slaves,is this going to be called prostitution now?

The problem is,sunnies have little ability to use deduction or think.

You guys called me a lebanese rafidhi,I'm proud to be called both walhamdulilah. Sad part is the Lebanese rawafidh are the only ones doing anything to israel,the sunnies are too busy polishing the shoes for the west.

[TripolySunni]

Most of your ahadith have irsal,the"sunnies" didn't even start writing down their ahadith till a century later,what do you expect?


And you are a liar with no shame because we wrote our narrations way earlier than that:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?327041-Writing-of-prophetic-narrations-and-knowledge-during-the-days-of-the-companions-(raa)

Also the main Shia book of Hadith was written way after our books making ours much closer to the source.



And all of those ahadith that you posted are shadh(odd/contradicted),or they are athar,or they are weak like your aql habibi.

Only someone with a weak `Aql, devoid of understanding and religion would dare to weaken narrations above, they include narrations from Sahih Muslim which is more authentic than your entire religion.

I rally don't advise you to talk about the science of Hadith since you're terrible at it and you have some weird ridiculous theories, I don't feel too sorry for you.



You guys didn't respond to anything that I posted ,all you did was insult and call shi'i women whores,kind of ironic lol.

Which they are to a great extent, except those whom Allah had mercy on.



Sunnies do misyar marriage like colonel sanders cooks chicken,have you been to egypt? Do you know how many clubs and urfi marriages go on there?

`Urfi is rejected by Ahlul-Sunnah, Misyar is nowhere near Mut`ah, in fact let me quote a Fatwa from a renowned website explaining what Misyar is:

http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=3329


الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه أما بعد:
فزواج المسيار له صورتان :
الأولى : أن يتم عقد الزواج بين الزوجين مستوفياً جميع الأركان والشروط المطلوبة في العقد من وجود المهر والولي وشاهدي عدل، إلا أن الزوج يشترط في العقد إسقاط النفقة أو المسكن، بحيث تسكن هي في مسكنها ويأتي الزوج إليها في مسكن مخصص لها ، فيكون الزوج غير مكلف بالسكنى والنفقة عليها، هذه صورة.
والصورة الأخرى ألا يشترط الزوج إسقاط النفقة، لكن يشترط عدم الالتزام بالقسم في المبيت، وهو الأكثر، لأن الحامل على مثل هذا الزواج هو رغبة الزوج في إخفاء أمر هذا الزواج عن أهله وأولاده، درءاً للمشاكل المحتملة منهم إذا علموا بذلك، والأول قد يكون الحامل عليه رغبة الزوجة التي لم يتيسر لها زوج ترضى به ، في أن ترزق بذرية وأن تحمي نفسها من الوقوع في الحرام، فإذا كان ما ذكر هو زواج المسيار، فهو عقد صحيح، ولا يعكر عليه إسقاط أحد الزوجين بعض حقوقه، إذا كان فعل ذلك راضياً مختاراً، مقدماً مصلحة أعلى بالنسبة له، سواء كان ذلك أثناء العقد أو بعد تمامه، وأخرج ابن أبي شيبه عن عامرالشعبي أنه سئل عن الرجل يكون له امرأة فيتزوج المرأة فيشترط، لهذه يوماً، ولهذه يومين قال لا بأس به.
وأخرج أيضاً أن الحسن البصري كان لا يرى بأساً في الشرط في النكاح إذا كان علانية، وهذا النوع من الزواج - زواج المسيار- فيه مصالح، من حفظ الأعراض وقطع أسباب الفساد، خاصة من جهة النساء التي لا تتيسر لهن أسباب الزواج، وهن كثيرات، كما أنه لا يسلم من مؤاخذات، خاصة بعد وفاة الزوج من المشاحة والمشاحنة في الحقوق والإرث، ولهذا منعه بعض أهل العلم، والأظهر - والله أعلم - جوازه لأنه لا دليل على منعه بعد استيفائه أركان وشروط النكاح الصحيح.
وقد يظن البعض أن زواج المسيار زواج مؤقت بوقت وليس كذلك، بل لو وُقت بوقت محدد كان باطلاً لأنه والحالة هذه يكون متعة.
والله أعلم .

The first sentence is:
"That a marriage contract would be done between the two, gathering all the rules and conditions such as the dowry, the Wali, the two just witnesses, but the marriage makes the condition of dropping the housing or the Nafaqah, so she sits at her own house and he visits her at her place...."

The last sentence is:
"Some may think that al-Misyar marriage is limited by a set time, it is NOT, if a time has been set then it becomes BATIL as it turns into Mut`ah."



You people sound like christians attacking us for polygamy,aren't you aware that we are allowed to have sexual relations with captured slave girls? Also we are allowed to sell slaves,is this going to be called prostitution now?

Stick to the topic of Mut`ah son, don't go jumping left and right.


The problem is,sunnies have little ability to use deduction or think.

Shia have absolutely none, if they did they would have abandoned their theories simply because their Imam gave his daughter to his enemy in marriage.


You guys called me a lebanese rafidhi,I'm proud to be called both walhamdulilah. Sad part is the Lebanese rawafidh are the only ones doing anything to israel,the sunnies are too busy polishing the shoes for the west.

Let's compare how many Enemy soldiers were killed by the Sunnies in Checheniya and Afghanistan and Palestine and Somalia ect... we killed thousands upon thousands of US and Nato and Soviets...

As for your earlier post it has been refuted long ago in various posts in this thread, it is a fact that the Prophet (SAWS) banned Mut`ah so don't waste our time.

Also it appears that you wrote that Mu`wiyah (ra) believes in Mut`ah? This means that all Hadiths of `Ali (ra) in which he says Mut`ah is Halal are Taqiyyah, he was doing this out of fear.

Also you nuked your belief in Taqiyyah because what you quoted above shows that there was a difference of opinion on Mut`ah and no one killed anyone, this means that Taqiyyah is essentially useless and with it falls a huge amount of Shia narrations.

[New_Muslim]

Most of your ahadith have irsal,the"sunnies" didn't even start writing down their ahadith till a century later,what do you expect?

And all of those ahadith that you posted are shadh(odd/contradicted),or they are athar,or they are weak like your aql habibi.


You guys didn't respond to anything that I posted ,all you did was insult and call shi'i women whores,kind of ironic lol.


Sunnies do misyar marriage like colonel sanders cooks chicken,have you been to egypt? Do you know how many clubs and urfi marriages go on there?

You people sound like christians attacking us for polygamy,aren't you aware that we are allowed to have sexual relations with captured slave girls? Also we are allowed to sell slaves,is this going to be called prostitution now?

The problem is,sunnies have little ability to use deduction or think.

You guys called me a lebanese rafidhi,I'm proud to be called both walhamdulilah. Sad part is the Lebanese rawafidh are the only ones doing anything to israel,the sunnies are too busy polishing the shoes for the west.

Yeah, that's rich. Dismiss our Hadiths as weak and contradictory yet when it comes to a Hadith which, in your mind strengthens your argument regarding the Prophet's (SAW) succession it's authentic.

Shiaism didn't even exist after when we starting compiling our narrations so what're you on about? Seriously, mate.

Misyar is simply when the woman voids her right to be financially supported by her husband. This makes common sense: how many of university students today can relate to this? The man is still in university and can therefore not support a girl financially. Instead of getting into a life of sin, the two get married and the woman voids her right to maintenance so that they can get married.

That is all. That is it. Nothing at all similar to Mutah.

Mutah = temporary = prostitution
Misyar = permanent = marriage

This craze to equate Mutah with Misyar is one of the desperate of your propagandists to conflate simple issues, just like they conflate abrogation with Tahreef. This is to hide your embarrassment over your filthy religion which allows women to be rented by the hour. Although, I still personally condemn Misyar too, but there is a difference.

I have come across or heard of Sunni girls engages in worse stuff than clubbing and what not. This isn't about which, side is a saint it's which group of girls are natural sluts and that's the Shia helium heads. Why? Because a Shia dude can have a house and 10 girls living with him at once and doing his thing with each of them. Does Mutah not permit then? It's in your own book you can have up to 1000 temporary wives.

Observe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5OGZlPSW8E

How the fudge does this remove the bad affects of Zina you basket? It only mean you're exhausting your turnip to overdrive. Your Shia becharia (poor girls) are being exploited by Shia p1mps and pl4y4z, see the videos above. ^

I didn't Shiaism accuses Hussain (RA), Hassan (RA) and Prophet Mohammed (SAW) of practicing Mutah - astagfirullah.

Yes, be proud to be a champion of the devil and keep following his way of life. May the peace and blessings of the Shaitain be upon you. The fact is your religion or version of Islam is a load of manure, Ameen.

[baytul-herz24]

And you are a liar with no shame because we wrote our narrations way earlier than that:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?327041-Writing-of-prophetic-narrations-and-knowledge-during-the-days-of-the-companions-(raa)

Also the main Shia book of Hadith was written way after our books making ours much closer to the source.




Only someone with a weak `Aql, devoid of understanding and religion would dare to weaken narrations above, they include narrations from Sahih Muslim which is more authentic than your entire religion.

I rally don't advise you to talk about the science of Hadith since you're terrible at it and you have some weird ridiculous theories, I don't feel too sorry for you.




Which they are to a great extent, except those whom Allah had mercy on.




`Urfi is rejected by Ahlul-Sunnah, Misyar is nowhere near Mut`ah, in fact let me quote a Fatwa from a renowned website explaining what Misyar is:

http://www.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=3329



The first sentence is:
"That a marriage contract would be done between the two, gathering all the rules and conditions such as the dowry, the Wali, the two just witnesses, but the marriage makes the condition of dropping the housing or the Nafaqah, so she sits at her own house and he visits her at her place...."

The last sentence is:
"Some may think that al-Misyar marriage is limited by a set time, it is NOT, if a time has been set then it becomes BATIL as it turns into Mut`ah."




Stick to the topic of Mut`ah son, don't go jumping left and right.



Shia have absolutely none, if they did they would have abandoned their theories simply because their Imam gave his daughter to his enemy in marriage.



Let's compare how many Enemy soldiers were killed by the Sunnies in Checheniya and Afghanistan and Palestine and Somalia ect... we killed thousands upon thousands of US and Nato and Soviets...

As for your earlier post it has been refuted long ago in various posts in this thread, it is a fact that the Prophet (SAWS) banned Mut`ah so don't waste our time.

Also it appears that you wrote that Mu`wiyah (ra) believes in Mut`ah? This means that all Hadiths of `Ali (ra) in which he says Mut`ah is Halal are Taqiyyah, he was doing this out of fear.

Also you nuked your belief in Taqiyyah because what you quoted above shows that there was a difference of opinion on Mut`ah and no one killed anyone, this means that Taqiyyah is essentially useless and with it falls a huge amount of Shia narrations.

They wrote down small snippets of Hadith here and there ,nothing that is even close to being relevant to this discussion.

Regarding those ahadith many of them are athar,weak,or as I said contradicted by many other ahadith including an entire Sunni school who held it to be valid not to mention the entire city of Mecca. Even albani said most sunni scholars at one point considered allowed.


And regarding Hadith science Im still laughing at your friends comment that a Hadith cannot be tawatur if it's only extracted from 4 books,are you kidding who taught him?


Why don't you actually try to refute my earlier post instead of calling Muslim women whores like a coward with no akhlaq behind a computer screen.

Regarding misya marriage there doesn't have to be a time period set the man can make talaq whenever he wants without reason. Lol

And btw we both know who teaches Israel lessons day in and out. Your "mujahideen" are a bunch of pirates who constantly kill children and women and not to mention sell outs to The west.

[baytul-herz24]

You didn't write down Hadith,some companions wrote 10 or 15 here and there. Your entire current Hadith collectIon is purely oral,ur Hadith body is riddled with tadlees.


You have barely any Hadith on fiqh,in fact you barely have any Hadith at all.

I find it funny how sunnies try to attack our hadith science when theirs is garbage no offense.


Next they'll be trying to tell us the prophet saw was bewitched ans Aisha loved ali (as).

[transitory]

You didn't write down Hadith,some companions wrote 10 or 15 here and there. Your entire current Hadith collectIon is purely oral,ur Hadith body is riddled with tadlees.


You have barely any Hadith on fiqh,in fact you barely have any Hadith at all.

I find it funny how sunnies try to attack our hadith science when theirs is garbage no offense.


Next they'll be trying to tell us the prophet saw was bewitched ans Aisha loved ali (as).

Are you out of your mind, ya khabees?

This dirty by product of mutah must be banned and his filthy postings deleted!

[baytul-herz24]

Regarding the Hadith of those not accepting the wilaya of ali (as) being kuffar I have a solution for you guys,just become sane human beings and become Shias :)

What kind of mind in denial thinks the prophet (as) left the ummah without leaving a wasi?

You honestly think that Abu bakr (la) or umar (la) even comes close to the dust under Abu turabs (as) sandal?

What kind of Muslims calls Muslim women whores and insults when they can't answer intellectually ?

[Jinn]

Regarding the Hadith of those not accepting the wilaya of ali (as) being kuffar I have a solution for you guys,just become sane human beings and become Shias :)

What kind of mind in denial thinks the prophet (as) left the ummah without leaving a wasi?

You honestly think that Abu bakr (la) or umar (la) even comes close to the dust under Abu turabs (as) sandal?

What kind of Muslims calls Muslim women whores and insults when they can't answer intellectually ?

Listen you filthy rafidhi,

When you talk about Abu Bakr and Umar :anhu: have some respect and how dare you write (la) after their names.

May the curse of Allah be on you as you have cursed the beloved of Rasoolalah :saw:

[jello]

Salam Alaykum,

Actually, I am somewhat relieved that this Twelver Shia has come out saying that we only have "oral chains", since it shows that like their Orientalist Jewish and Christian friends, the Twelvers have absolutely no idea about how knowledge is transmitted in Islam.

Of course, what else could be expected from Christians, Jews, and Shias? All of them are united on the point that the early Muslims were liars, the only difference being that the Shias exclude Muhammad (S.A.W.) and a few of his family members including Ali, Hassan, Hussayn, Fatimah (R.A.A.) from the imputation of lying- even though it is not clear how a group so small can give the religion to the masses if they do not have the underlying mass community of truthful disciples- something which the Twelvers proudly admit has never been the case, due to "Thulm that occurred on the Ahl ul Bayt".

Anyway, I will take this opportunity to refer all members (Muslim or otherwise) to the following links:

http://defendingislam10.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/zaman_iftikhar_the-evolution_ofa-_hadith.pdf

http://defendingislam10.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/isnad-significance-mmazami.pdf

http://defendingislam10.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/studiesinhadithmmazami.pdf

These are quite extensive books and maybe many members have already read them, but for the objective reader it will show that Sunnism is much grander that what the non-Muslims allege.

[jello]

What kind of mind in denial thinks the prophet (as) left the ummah without leaving a wasi?

The mind who holds that Allah has no obligations, contrary to the Twelver Shia view.

The Twelver insistence that leaving a Wasi is a kindness incumbent on Allah opens up a Pandora's box.

This is obvious, since the very first thing we Sunnis will say is that according to such a mentality, it is obligatory on Allah for Him to make the Imam visibly available to every one so that every single person would have immediate direct access to him, not through the interpretations of the Hawazaat or through the categorization of narrations. It would also be incumbent upon Allah (according to such a view) that the enemies of the Imam would never be able to hinder his ability to openly express the correct religion - something which obviously has never happened according to the Twelver view.

[TripolySunni]

You didn't write down Hadith,some companions wrote 10 or 15 here and there. Your entire current Hadith collectIon is purely oral,ur Hadith body is riddled with tadlees.


You have barely any Hadith on fiqh,in fact you barely have any Hadith at all.

I find it funny how sunnies try to attack our hadith science when theirs is garbage no offense.


Next they'll be trying to tell us the prophet saw was bewitched ans Aisha loved ali (as).

I think the best reply to you is a smile : )

seriously,

[TripolySunni]

Salam Alaykum,

Actually, I am somewhat relieved that this Twelver Shia has come out saying that we only have "oral chains", since it shows that like their Orientalist Jewish and Christian friends, the Twelvers have absolutely no idea about how knowledge is transmitted in Islam.


Where do you think this numb-skull Jahil is taking his information from? it's all from orientalists, tire heads and enemies of Allah that have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever... he says he's "laughing" at my friend and he says "who taught him Hadith?" the guy he's laughing at was taught by some of the top scholars and has read more books than he can imagine, he even wrote an entire book recently that is now being published and it destroys their Imam al-Jawad by going through all of his narrations and proving that he was useless...

The funniest bit is the dude believes that there's something in his posts worth replying to.

[TripolySunni]

Regarding the Hadith of those not accepting the wilaya of ali (as) being kuffar I have a solution for you guys,just become sane human beings and become Shias :)

What kind of mind in denial thinks the prophet (as) left the ummah without leaving a wasi?

You honestly think that Abu bakr (la) or umar (la) even comes close to the dust under Abu turabs (as) sandal?

What kind of Muslims calls Muslim women whores and insults when they can't answer intellectually ?

Let me reply to this one cause it's quite funny, first of all there is no Imamah, it doesn't exist, secondly the Shia are far from being sane, more like grave worshipers , fornicators, compulsive liars, pain loving masochists, Mushrikeen of the highest order and devoid of intellect among other things... Your Imamah is a fairy-tale, the authentic narrations of Ahlul-Bayt (ra) and the Sahaba (ra) and the Qur'an all prove this without a doubt, in fact I'm from Ahlul-Bayt both Hassani and Husseini and my Nasab is greater than all of your scholars put together, I disown you and all Shia, and so do most of Ahlul-Bayt who are Sunni for your information.

Then you talk about minds in denial, first of all I don't know where you got the idea that there must always be a Wasi present to guide the people. You say if this is the case then we lack intellect, I say you accuse Allah of lack of intellect simply because no Wasi was appointed after `Isa (as), and there is no Wasi today to guide humanity and correct the mistakes of the believers, so you accuse the Lord of having no wisdom and no understanding and no justice.

Then you curse Abu Bakr (ra) and `Umar (ra), believe it or not, no un-bias human being who reads the biographies of those men would reach the conclusion that `Ali (ra) was better, just compare their achievements and their rule and see for yourself, see how Islam was fortified and strong and always expanding in the days of the two you curse.

If you want to discuss with intellect, then discuss the fact that the Prophet (SAWS) gave two of his daughters to `Uthman (ra), and that he married the daughters of the two whom you curse like a donkey day and night, and that `Ali (ra) and Hassan (ra) and Hussein (ra) and the rest of your Imams all named their children after those whom you consider enemies, discuss the fact that `Umar (ra) used to give `Ali (ra) gifts and he gave him a huge piece of land called Yanbu` and offered to give him Fadak and made him a head judge, that `Ali (ra) married his daughter to `Umar (ra), that al-Hassan (ra) gave the Khilafah to Mu`awiyah (ra) ect..ect...

So please I repeat, spare us of your intellect as you have none, and if you want to compare the narrations authentically attributed to the Prophet (SAWS) stating that Mut`ah was banned to the Athar and stories you have of it not being banned, be my guest I will show you without the shadow of a doubt which of the two sides is much much stronger.

[New_Muslim]

They wrote down small snippets of Hadith here and there ,nothing that is even close to being relevant to this discussion.

Regarding those ahadith many of them are athar,weak,or as I said contradicted by many other ahadith including an entire Sunni school who held it to be valid not to mention the entire city of Mecca. Even albani said most sunni scholars at one point considered allowed.


And regarding Hadith science Im still laughing at your friends comment that a Hadith cannot be tawatur if it's only extracted from 4 books,are you kidding who taught him?


Why don't you actually try to refute my earlier post instead of calling Muslim women whores like a coward with no akhlaq behind a computer screen.

Regarding misya marriage there doesn't have to be a time period set the man can make talaq whenever he wants without reason. Lol

And btw we both know who teaches Israel lessons day in and out. Your "mujahideen" are a bunch of pirates who constantly kill children and women and not to mention sell outs to The west.


Awwwwwwwww, wanna' hug? You wish.

There is nothing to refute your Rafidah (may Iblees be pleased with them) chimp. We acknowledge once upon a time Mutah was permitted and I am certain the companions never exploited the system like you and your scholars do.

The narrations I put forward came after the time when Mutah was legalised so you need to do the refuting mate. Instead you've gone off on a tangent showing your true colours. I KNEW IT! I always say the only way to approach a Rafidah when debating with them is rip into them and tackle them head on then the Taqiyah armor will be destroyed.

I am not saying Muslim girls are whores (astagfirullah), but Shia girls who use the Mutah system to fullfill their own sexual impulses. You Rafidahs would show us you have some shred of integrity if you said it permissible, but discouraged sort of like Talaq (divorce), but rather you encourage it and claim we'll reach the status or somewhat of our Prophet (SAW) and his grandsons (RA) - I mean, w00t?

There is corruption all over the world not least in Muslim countries, granted. Allah guide us all, but which sect do Muslims revert to and embrace? Sunni Islam because they know Shiaism is nothing but a religion that encourages whorafication, retardation and pure dissemblance.

You're batting for the wrong team, mate. You're the ultimate loser. ;)

[Sultaan]

This filthy Rafidhi, Baytul-Herz, who curses and makes takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar is proof of the diseased mind of these deviants. His Lebanese Rafidhi ilk, make takfeer of the shaykhan and favour the Imams of kufr over them like Bashar and "la ilah illah illa Bashar", "Bashar Akbar", prostrating to the pictures of Bashar, the kufr of the Assadi regime which was standard operating procedure in their dungeons for decades when interrogating prisoners, and the kufr of the shabeeha of Bashar, even on their so-called "Islamic" channel, Al-Manar, without nakeer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrb5X78_hVk

Just like they also praised Bashar and his regime nonstop on their channels, they lavishly praised their allies, the anti-Islamic Saleebi , Michel Aoun, and the Maronite archbishop, while Hezbollah's own shuyookh make takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar. Why do make takfeer of the shaykhan and favour the imams of kufr over them? Why was Hezbollah and the Iranian regime totally silent on the Afghan and Iraqi Rafidha who rode to power on American tanks while declaring all of the Syrian uprising traitors from day one in contrast to the numerous Sunnis who opposed the treachery of Sunni regimes for centuries?

[Jinn]

An old video but good nonetheless


Rafidhi dog gets a cup in the face

http://youtu.be/J_3ATuhClrE

[New_Muslim]

An old video but good nonetheless


Rafidhi dog gets a cup in the face

http://youtu.be/J_3ATuhClrE

What a retard. He insults his wife and then denies it repeatedly.

[New_Muslim]

You obviously don't have a mind for politics and think in black and white like a typical sunni. Hezbollah and Iran are using bashar as a strategetic tool it has nothing to do with us liking them,and regarding the president of lebanon we support him because we use him. Politics is politics it has nothing to do with like or dislike ,stop playing checkers when the world plays in chess. Regarding bashar al assad,you do know there have been a plethora of videos that are fake right? Do you think the FSA are any better? Not long ago they were caught using car bombs blowing up shi'i neighbors hoods,but what do you expect from kuffar who worship abu bakr lanatullah and umar lanatullah and says Allah has finger tips and jogs?


You guys are monkeys for the west put on your suit and spin your jack in the box so they can tip you.


Why do you think the USA supports salafi and sunni fighters in Syria? Why do you think the west funds the sunni kuffar in syria to fight?

That's rich coming from a Rafidhi (may Iblees be pleased with you) who follows a deviant sect that indulge in:

- Worshiping graves
- Flagging themselves to a bloody pult claiming this is the ultimate sacrificial way of articulating love to the Ahlul-Bhayt? Horse ****, what don't you cut your knobs while at your at it?
- Rolling over in the mud of Karbala like accursed snakes
- Calling upon people who're dead instead of Allah
- Attributing evil qualities to those that the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) loved most
- Thinking it's alright for their woman-folk to flock around looking for fresh-baloney as long as one claims Mutah which, doesn't even take two minutes then the party gets started
- Being authorised to talk ****e if it means swaying someone to the truth

Kuffar? Don't make me laugh. Your entire foundation is what personifies the very concept of Kuffar.

[suleimanibnsalim]

Regarding the Hadith of those not accepting the wilaya of ali (as) being kuffar I have a solution for you guys,just become sane human beings and become Shias :)

What kind of mind in denial thinks the prophet (as) left the ummah without leaving a wasi?

You honestly think that Abu bakr (la) or umar (la) even comes close to the dust under Abu turabs (as) sandal?

What kind of Muslims calls Muslim women whores and insults when they can't answer intellectually ?

What an academic response! Ma sha' Allah!

You accuse others of being insulting and attacking women by a computer screen, yet that's all of you've here, you idiot! May the eternal curse of Allah be upon you!

[pakistani_327]

You obviously don't have a mind for politics and think in black and white like a typical sunni. Hezbollah and Iran are using bashar as a strategetic tool it has nothing to do with us liking them,and regarding the president of lebanon we support him because we use him. Politics is politics it has nothing to do with like or dislike ,stop playing checkers when the world plays in chess. Regarding bashar al assad,you do know there have been a plethora of videos that are fake right? Do you think the FSA are any better? Not long ago they were caught using car bombs blowing up shi'i neighbors hoods,but what do you expect from kuffar who worship abu bakr lanatullah and umar lanatullah and says Allah has finger tips and jogs?


You guys are monkeys for the west put on your suit and spin your jack in the box so they can tip you.


Why do you think the USA supports salafi and sunni fighters in Syria? Why do you think the west funds the sunni kuffar in syria to fight?

اللعنت اللّھ علیکم
you are a kafir for making takfir of the shekhain.

in addition there are several wrong informations given in your post regarding funding and support which makes you a very stupid kafir.

:insh: you will die one day like a dog at the hands of a sunni. like your kafir brethren in pakistan and Iraq and syria are killed for revenge of their crimes against ahlulsunnah. you will pay for your takfir. also did you cry yesterday when some of you zindeeq were blown to pieces in Iraq? maybe you should do some muta to calm your nerves.

so you are basically a very stupid and emotional kafir. go and suck your thumb in a corner kindly.

[New_Muslim]

What an academic response! Ma sha' Allah!

You accuse others of being insulting and attacking women by a computer screen, yet that's all of you've here, you idiot! May the eternal curse of Allah be upon you!

Bro, you got it all wrong man.

May the peace and blessings of Iblees be upon him. ;)

[TripolySunni]

This dude also claims that the Hadith of `Ali (ra) about the banning of Mut`ah is fabricated? Let me show you how strong and solid our chain of narrators is to `Ali (ra).

al-Imam abu al-Fath Nasr bin Ibraheem al-Maqdisi wrote: abu al-Hassan `Ali bin Musa bin al-Khasshab al-Samsar said: abu Zayd Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Maruzi told us: abu `Abdillah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Farabri said: abu `Abdillah Muhammad bin Isma`eel al-Bukhari said: Malik bin Isma`eel told us: Suffiyan ibn `Uyaynah told us that he heard ibn Shihab al-Zuhri saying: al-Hassan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah and his brother `Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah both narrated, from their father Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, that `Ali ibn abi Talib said to ibn `Abbas: "Did you not know that the Prophet (SAWS) forbade the Nikah of Mut`ah and the meat of the domestic donkey in the time of Khaybar!?"

Imam al-Bukhari is narrating from MAJOR Imams of Hadith such as Suffiyan ibn `Uyaynah and ibn Shihab al-Zuhri may Allah be pleased with them, he is also narrating from four members of Ahlul-Bayt, al-Hassan and `Abdullah the sons of ibn al-Hanafiyyah, from their father Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, from his father `Ali bin abi Talib may Allah be pleased with all of them.

I can get you tons of chains for this ONE narration from `Ali (ra).

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

Followers of Abdullah bin Saba know nothing other than abusing the Sahaba and baytul-herz24 is one of them.




You honestly think that Abu bakr (la) or umar (la) even comes close to the dust under Abu turabs (as) sandal?



but what do you expect from kuffar who worship abu bakr lanatullah and umar lanatullah

[Sultaan]

You obviously don't have a mind for politics and think in black and white like a typical sunni. Hezbollah and Iran are using bashar as a strategetic tool it has nothing to do with us liking them,and regarding the president of lebanon we support him because we use him. Politics is politics it has nothing to do with like or dislike ,stop playing checkers when the world plays in chess. Regarding bashar al assad,you do know there have been a plethora of videos that are fake right? Do you think the FSA are any better? Not long ago they were caught using car bombs blowing up shi'i neighbors hoods,but what do you expect from kuffar who worship abu bakr lanatullah and umar lanatullah and says Allah has finger tips and jogs?


You guys are monkeys for the west put on your suit and spin your jack in the box so they can tip you.


Why do you think the USA supports salafi and sunni fighters in Syria? Why do you think the west funds the sunni kuffar in syria to fight?

Don't tell me it's politics Baytul-Shaytaan or Abd-Bashar, and your pathetic reply reeks of brazen hypocrisy, you Rafidha can't mock Ahl-Sunnah for Hukm ala-rijaal and Sunni treachery, than make pathetic excuses for your sect. You Lebanese Rafidha are among the most cowardly and mut'assib amongst them, that is why your ilk were almost totally silent on the Afghan and Iraqi Rafidha who rode to power on American tanks, who were armed by the Americans, and whose rule was cemented in power by the Americans while Amal, Hezbollah and the Safawid Iranian regime made takhween of all of the Syrian uprising from day one. Why was Hasan Nasrallah, Nabih Berri and the Iranian regime totally silent on their buddies who rode to power on Americans tanks in contrast to the innumberable Sunnis who confronted the treachery of the Sunni regimes and their palace scholars for centuries until today, and the Rafidha even used the treachery of the Sunni regimes as a sign of Sunni deviance in their anti-Sunni propaganda, so you can't slither away when your ilk collaborates with the West. Why the hypocrisy?
Secondly, your ilk have long accused Ahl-Sunnah of being "madhab Yazeed" or "madhab Bani Umayyah" in your propaganda, even though hundreds of Sunni scholars condemned the scumbag Yazeed and the oppression of Bani Umayyah. Are Ibn Zubayr, Ibn Mutee', Sa'eed ibn Jubayr, Ibn Al-Ash'ath, and Abu Hanifah, Malik and Shafi'i(who were punished by the khulafa of their time for the support of Ahl al-Bayt) "madhab Yazeed"?! This lie also ignores the many Shi'ite versions of Yazeed and Hajjaj over the centuries who were directed towards Ahl Sunnah like Ibn Alqami, the Qaramitah, the Fatimids, the Safavids, Hafez and Bashar al-Assad. What happened to the hypocritical rants about oppressive rulers and the Assadi regime isn't just oppressive, it is one of the most anti-Islamic regimes in the Arab world, and yet Bashar and his regime are considered "great Muslims" by the Rafidha and they were lionised on Al-Manar and NBN, where they were praised hundreds of times, "Ar-Ra'ees, Ad-Duktoor Bashar..", while they wouldn't dare even offer mild praise for Abu Bakr and Umar. This in addition to their constant praise for the Saleebi shabeeh, Michel Aoun, who attacks Islaam constantly, and the Maronite archbishop, so your ilk have proven with their actions and words that they favour the imams of kufr like Bashar, Michel Aoun, Ra'ee, the shabeeh kuffar who boast about their kufr on Al-Manar and other channels, and you are obligated to answer about this hypocrisy. Politics are part and parcel of the deen.

[Sultaan]

In response to Omar Bakri and some Lebanese Salafi shaykh who spoke about the tahreem of congratulating the Nasara on Christmas, Lebanese Rafidhi shaykh, Sadiq an-Nabulsi of Hezbollah, incites against the Salafis because of this and their takfeer of the Nasara and accuses them of bringing "jahiliyyaat"! in the name of Islaam. This is another example of the deviance of the Rafidha and the father of this ruwaybadah, one of their Aayaat ash-Shayateen, boasts about making takfeer of Abu Bakr and Umar, in the foreword to one of their volumes by saying, لا نخشى في الله لومة لائم.

http://www.saidagate.net/article.php?news=23950


ولفت إلى أنّ هناك جاهليات تخرج اليوم باسم الإسلام تدعو إلى التكفير والتصنيف

Where are you Baytul-Shaytaan and your hypocritical concern about tajseem, this is one of your shuyookh inciting the kuffar against the "Takfiris" because they make takfeer of the Nasara!! Takfeer of the Nasara is "Jahiliyyat" according to this Rafidhi shaykh from Hezbollah, so the Qur'an is "Takfiri".

Also, Baytul-Shaytaan, Hezbollah's bravery against the Zionists doesn't mean they are on haqq and the current propaganda about the Syrian uprising being about Palestine is disputed by the fact that the Rafidha make takfeer of Umar and Salah ad-Din who liberated Palestine, and the Palestinian resistance in Lebanon, against whom the Assadi regime and Amal waged numerous wars.

[Sultaan]

but what do you expect from kuffar who worship abu bakr lanatullah and umar lanatullah

They will praise, collaborate, laugh and smile with the Imams of kufr like their leaders did in Iraq with the Americans, but even offering mild praise for the shaykhan, while believing in Ali's superiority like Lebanese Shi'ite marja', Fadlallah, necessitates dozens of their ulama and shuyookh to attack him and accuse him of being "Batri" and being called Fadl ash-Shaytaan by Shirazi who celebrated his death, while the kufr of the Assadi regime is ignored. It was common practise of the Syrian mukhabarat when they were interrogating prisoners, especially Sunni Islamists, to mock the deen and utter kufr.

[Sultaan]

A gift for Baytul-Herz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtyNjZoeh-8

[TripolySunni]

An interesting authentic narration:

نهَى رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ عن المتعةِ قال وإنمَا كانتْ لِمَن لمْ يجدْ فلمَّا أُنزلَ النكاحُ والطلاقُ والعدةُ والميراثُ بينَ الزوجِ والمرأةِ نُسختْ

Musa bin Ayyub, from Iyas bin `Amir, from `Ali bin abi Talib (ra): "The Prophet (SAWS) forbade Mut`ah." He continued: "It was only allowed for those who could not find (a woman), then when the Nikah and the Talaq and the `Iddah and the Meerath were revealed for the husband and the wife, then the practice of Mut`ah was abrogated."

source: al-Silsilah al-Sahiha by al-Albani and he said "No harm in its Isnad for Shawahid."

هَدمَ المتعةَ النِّكاحُ والطَّلاقُ والعدَّةُ والميراثُ

Sa`eed al-Maqbari from abu Huraira (ra): "Mut`ah was demolished or forbidden through Nikah, Talaq, `Iddah and Meerath."

source: ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said in al-Dirayah "Isnad is Hasan."

Meaning that the proper marriage laws of divorce and the waiting period and the inheritance and so on ... these all abrogated the act of Jahiliyyah known as Mut`ah.

[New_Muslim]

An interesting authentic narration:

نهَى رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ عن المتعةِ قال وإنمَا كانتْ لِمَن لمْ يجدْ فلمَّا أُنزلَ النكاحُ والطلاقُ والعدةُ والميراثُ بينَ الزوجِ والمرأةِ نُسختْ

Musa bin Ayyub, from Iyas bin `Amir, from `Ali bin abi Talib (ra): "The Prophet (SAWS) forbade Mut`ah." He continued: "It was only allowed for those who could not find (a woman), then when the Nikah and the Talaq and the `Iddah and the Meerath were revealed for the husband and the wife, then the practice of Mut`ah was abrogated."

source: al-Silsilah al-Sahiha by al-Albani and he said "No harm in its Isnad for Shawahid."

هَدمَ المتعةَ النِّكاحُ والطَّلاقُ والعدَّةُ والميراثُ

Sa`eed al-Maqbari from abu Huraira (ra): "Mut`ah was demolished or forbidden through Nikah, Talaq, `Iddah and Meerath."

source: ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said in al-Dirayah "Isnad is Hasan."

Meaning that the proper marriage laws of divorce and the waiting period and the inheritance and so on ... these all abrogated the act of Jahiliyyah known as Mut`ah.

Hit the nail on the head.

I wonder where the Rafidhi is gone?

[Sultaan]

I wonder where the Rafidhi is gone?

Hiding at his forum where they have their own pathetic thread talking about the "ill-mannered" Sunnis, forgetting the kufr of their Nusayris buddies. If the Rafidha obligate us with Ibn Abbas's approval of mut'ah, which is a fiqhi matter, than they are doubly obligated with Ibn Abbas's shahada that A'isha was a Muslim and him eulogising her. Baytul-Herz should also ask himself and his sycophants why they make takfeer of the shaykhan and favour the Imams of kufr like Bashar, Hafez, the American leaders whose tanks they rode to power on in Afghanistan and Iraq, taking billions from the Americans, and their leaders who were laughing and smiling with the Americans, the anti-Islamic Lebanese Saleebi Nasara like Michel Aoun and Ra'i, their Arab anti-Islamic secularist allies. This is how despicable the Rafidha are and it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy for Baytul-Herz and his ilk to rant hypocritcally about Syria, forgetting that many Syrian fighters oppose Western intervention, while they ignore Hezbollah's and the Iranian regime's deafening silence on the Afghan and Iraqi Rafidha who rode to power on American tanks, an example of their hypocrisy and sectarianism. Baytul-Herz, ask yourself and your snickering buddies why your deviant sect favour the Imams of kufr over Abu Bakr and Umar?!

[Sultaan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrb5X78_hVk

This is an example of the kufr of Bashar's lapdogs and Baytul-Herz's buddies, on Hezbollah's channel.

[baytul-herz24]

An interesting authentic narration:

نهَى رسولُ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ عن المتعةِ قال وإنمَا كانتْ لِمَن لمْ يجدْ فلمَّا أُنزلَ النكاحُ والطلاقُ والعدةُ والميراثُ بينَ الزوجِ والمرأةِ نُسختْ

Musa bin Ayyub, from Iyas bin `Amir, from `Ali bin abi Talib (ra): "The Prophet (SAWS) forbade Mut`ah." He continued: "It was only allowed for those who could not find (a woman), then when the Nikah and the Talaq and the `Iddah and the Meerath were revealed for the husband and the wife, then the practice of Mut`ah was abrogated."

source: al-Silsilah al-Sahiha by al-Albani and he said "No harm in its Isnad for Shawahid."

هَدمَ المتعةَ النِّكاحُ والطَّلاقُ والعدَّةُ والميراثُ

Sa`eed al-Maqbari from abu Huraira (ra): "Mut`ah was demolished or forbidden through Nikah, Talaq, `Iddah and Meerath."

source: ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said in al-Dirayah "Isnad is Hasan."

Meaning that the proper marriage laws of divorce and the waiting period and the inheritance and so on ... these all abrogated the act of Jahiliyyah known as Mut`ah.

This chain is not sahih nor hasan ,it has tadlees in it(typical),and it can only be used as a shawahid meaning on its own it has no strength.

I can show you quotes from your own big ulema that tadlees and irsal were quite common among the narrators,especially common due to the fact that most of your ahadith body was carried orally for 100 years or more. This also is not a "orientalist belief",it is well known that ahadith were not written down even in the sunni school.

One funny example is the fact that many of your scholars allowed tadlees from the tabi'ieen,assuming that they were narrating from ashab (who were all given blanket tawtheeq by the way which in itself is absurd and a new rijal principle created). So if you give me ahadith claiming that you're actually taking from ahlul bayt,I'd say it is suspect,especially when its contricted by the plethora of contextual facts and plethora of ahadith that exist.

The entire school of mecca held muta to be valid,including many members of ahlul bayt (as) like jafar as sadiq (as) who was actually inulted and mocked by the psuedo sunni scholars.


You get non-sense really from sunni rijal scholars,for example tawtheeq is given to the killer of hussein,and abu hatim ar razi one of your biggest rijal scholars if not your biggest claims that hassan (as) isn't even a sahabi.

[baytul-herz24]

Also,I still haven't recieved replies to my posts,if you guys can stop insulting and actually give some objectives answers it would be appreciated. I'm sure the followers of abu bakr can concuct some sort of manners due to his amazing akhlaq.

[Shahed-560]

Also,I still haven't recieved replies to my posts,if you guys can stop insulting and actually give some objectives answers it would be appreciated. I'm sure the followers of abu bakr can concuct some sort of manners due to his amazing akhlaq.

السلام عليكم

Your answers are with your guide, Shaytan the accursed. You won't go beyond his words!

[baytul-herz24]

Mashallah 3la al ahklaq minkum,akeed antum min al ahlus sunnah al mutaqeen.


I showed you that most early scholars accepted it,including the entire school of mecca,and including members of ahlul bayt (as) like ja3far as sadiq (as) who taught both abu hanifa and malik. You mean to tell me,that you're going to bring me ahadith that are probably forged by the umuyyads anyways,filled with tadlees and faulty tawtheeq and supposedly out of all the people on earth ali (as) telling everyone that muta3 is now banned forever? Even in the face of all the ahadith and evidence that shows or strongly implies that it was umar who banned it and not the prophet SAW?

I will ask a question that none of you on this forum will be able to answer.

Ibn abbas was one of the closest,if not the closest companion to ali (as),wouldn't ibn abbas not of known that muta is now banned?

All of the narrations that show that he was warned or that ali (as) corrected him,or that he retracted his opinion have weakness in the chains according to shawkani.


“The people of Makkan and Yemen report from Ibn ‘Abbas that he permitted [muta'ah], and it is reported from him that he recanted this opinion, though these chains have weakness in them. And he permission for it is what is most authentic from him, and it is the madh-hab of the Shi’iah.” ((Quoted by Imam Ash-Shawkani in Nayl Al-Awtar ))


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3250:

Not to mention the fact that the companions of ali (as) claimed that umar was the one who banned it,for example look at the narration of jabir ibn abdullah,a shi'i leaning and close companion to ali (as).

Like this hadith


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 (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.



This clearly contradicts the ahadith that you are brining me with the content of ali (as) or the prophet (as) telling everyone muta3 is banned forever,and I think we all know why.


Look at this hadith for example,


Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3248:

Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that jibir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet pbuh and during the time of Abi Bakr and 'Umar



You mean to tell me that jabir ibn abdullah,and numerous companions were doing muta3 through the life of the prophet (as) AND abu bakr and no one told them it was banned? Are you joking?


Even the daughter of abu bakr did muta3,are you going to tell me that abu bakr was going to let his daughter to muta3 while he thinks it is haram?

Ibn hazm lists asma bint abu bakr as one of the people who held muta3 to be valid in his talkhis,ibn hajr comments on this.

Ibn hajr al asqalani- As for what is mentioned from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr then Imam An-Nasa’i reports from the way of Muslim Al-Qrri who said, “I entered upon Asma’ bint Abi Bakr and we asked her regarding muta’ah with women and she said ‘We did it during the life of Rasulullah (‘alayhis salam).” ((Nasa’i 5540 ))



If the ahadith you were bringing me could be reconciled and brought together with these ahadith and the contextual/historical evidences then I'd accept it,but the ahadith you're bring are nothing but obvious forgeries claiming ali (as) is the one going around telling everyone muta3 is banned. Its an obvious umuyyad fabrication,and I say this because the ahadith you bring to me cannot be reconciled with the evidences.

[TripolySunni]

`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (ra)


You say ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted Mut`ah right? but as you know that the Prophet (SAWS) only permitted it in Jihad as a Rukhsa back then and then it was banned forever, in this case let me show you what kind of Mut`ah ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted:

قال أبو بكر الإسماعيلي في المستخرج: أنبأ يوسف القاضي: ثنا عمرو بن مرزوق: أنبأ شعبة، عن أبي جمرة، عن ابن عباس: أنه سُئِلَ عن متعة النساء، فقال مولى له: إنما كان ذلك في الجهاد والنساء قليل؟!. قال: فقال ابن عباس: صدق

Abu Bakr al-Isma`ilee in his Mustakhraj: Yusuf al-Qadi told, `Amro bin Marzuq told us, Shu`bah told us, from abi Hamzah, from ibn `Abbas (ra): That he was asked about the Mut`ah of women, so a Mawla of his asked him: "It is only in Jihad and there aren't many women!?" ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "That's true."

Grading: Sahih.

In other words his Mut`ah is not like the Shia Mut`ah which is done whenever. It is in the case of Jihad where there aren't many women.

Secondly, when ibn `Umar (ra) was told that ibn `Abbas (ra) permits Mut`ah, he said in the authentic narrations:

ما أظن ابن عباس يقول هذا

"I do not think that ibn `Abbas would say this."

and in another narration:

معاذ الله! ما أظن ابن عباس يفعل هذا

"I seek refuge in Allah! I do not believe ibn `Abbas would do this."

In other words if this was an acceptable saying or a popular opinion, ibn `Umar (ra) would not be so surprised or offended.

Then he says:

أما والله ما كان ليقول هذا في زمن عمر. وإن كان عمر ليُنَكّلَكُم عن مِثْلِ هذا. وما أعلمه إلا السِّفاح

"By Allah this would not be in the time of `Umar, `Umar would punish them for this. I only know that it is Zinah(adultery)."

So ibn `Abbas (ra) never voiced an opinion during the time of `Umar (ra) since `Umar (ra) used to b strict in his prohibition of Mut`ah. He did so later maybe in the time of `Ali (ra), this is why when this happened `Ali (ra) called on ibn `Abbas (ra) and told him:

إنكَ رجلٌ تائهٌ ، أما علمتَ أن رسولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن المتعةِ

"You are a misguided man, did you not know that the Prophet (SAWS) prohibited the Nikah of Mut`ah"

ibn `Umar (ra) goes further to say:

وهل كان ابن عباس على عهد رسول الله إلا غلاماً صغيراً؟

"Ibn `Abbas was only a little boy during the time of the Prophet (SAWS)."

Meaning he cannot place his opinion on top of the opinions of `Umar (ra) and `Ali (ra) and the other Sahaba (ra). More importantly, he cannot place his own saying over a clear text from the Prophet (SAWS).

This is as far as ibn `Abbas (ra) goes, and there are several narrations stating he went back on his opinion in permitting Mut`ah and that is valid although they have weakness in them.

But we assume this since ibn `Abbas (ra) said in ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi's "al-Mughni":

إذا ثبت لنا عن علي قول لم نعده إلى غيره

"If a saying had reached us from `Ali then we would not need to take any other opinion."

We'll get to the rest later and we'll go through them one by one.

[New_Muslim]

.

Lol,have you read bukhari? Bring me a hadith that is messed up or weird from al kafi and i'll show you either the tafseer is wrong or the chain is weak,and as a matter of fact we have nothing on the scale of your ahadith.



So jafar as sadiq (as),fuqaha of mecca,ibn abbas were pimps?

Didn't the prophet (as) allow it for 3 days?



You don't even know what taqiyya is,if you did you wouldn't set your fingers on your keyboard. Look at your own bukhari and your sunni fataawa :

"Lying is accepted as the source of all kinds of mischief, villainy and bad things. But there are some instances in which Islam permits lying, if that serves a greater purpose or wards off a greater harm. These cases are explained in the below hadith:
It was narrated that Asma’ bintu Yazid that The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
"Lies are not appropriate except in three cases:
1) When a man speaks to his wife to please her,
2) Telling lies at times of war,
3) Lying in order to bring about reconciliation between people.”
So;
1) War.
2) When a person is intermediating in order to bring about reconciliation between two disputing parties.
3) When a man speaks to his wife, or a wife to her husband, concerning matters that will increase the love between them.
It was narrated from Ummu Kulthum bint ‘Uqbah that she heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:
“He is not a liar who brings about reconciliation among people, conveys good words and says good things.” (Bukhari, Muslim)"


We lie when there is a gun to our heads and the person is about to kill you for being a shia,then obviously we are allowed to lie for a greater good. Or if we are hiding people and a group of soldiers are trying to kill them,if they ask us if we have them,of course we are allowed to lie in this situation to for a greater good.
Or when a greater good can come out of it for example if a non-muslim asks if we kill apostates,and you know for a fact 100 percent that he will not become muslim if you say yes,and you know 100 percent that if he becomes muslim he will accept the fact that we kill apostates 2 months later,then obviously lie,let him become muslim,and then tell him 2 months later when he can accept it and stay muslim. This is called wisdom something you are devoid of.







Worship graves? Sorry? You mean tawasul? So if I stand in front of the grave of muhammad SAW and ask muhammad to pray to allah for me this is shirk? Have you read your own ahadith and the words of your scholars?


Imam Shawkani RH [a major authority for the "salafis" due to his stance on Taqlid] says in al-Durr al-nadid fi ikhlas kalimat al-tawhid:

There is no harm in tawassul through any one of the Prophets or Friends of Allah or scholars of knowledge... One who comes to the grave as a visitor (za'iran) and invokes Allah alone, using as his means the dead person in the grave, is as one who says: "O Allah, I am asking that you cure me from such-and-such, and I use as a means to You whatever this righteous servant of Yours possesses for worshipping You and striving for Your sake and learning and teaching purely and sincerely for You." Such as this, there is no hesitation in declaring that it is permitted...


Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495)


وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري - وكان خازن عمر - قال " أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر " الحديث.
وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.

Ibn hajr says the chain is authentic,and a companion named malik ad dar,who was the treasurer of umar,came to the grave of the messanger and said "ya rasulallah".

Even an nawawi says to make the qabr of the prophet SAW as a qiblah for dua,go read your scholar's books.

As far as prosting to or on the graves shaykh tusi (ra) says


و لا يجوز السّجود إلّا على الأرض أو ما أنبتته الأرض، إلّا ما أكل أو لبس، و لا يجوز السّجود على القبر
“And sajdah is not allowed except upon the earth or what grows (from) the earth, except what (can be) eaten or worn, and sajdah is not allowed upon the grave”

We also have many ahadith that forbid it.



The messenger of allah SAW used to grab the soil of karbala and cry on it because he was informed Hussein (as) would be killed on that soil. If a shia laws on the ground of karbala and cries it is because he ground which hussein (as) died upon is blessed,thus there is barakat on ,and it is also a sunnah of the prophet (as). There are numerous ahadith atleast 10 or 15 sahih chains that talk about this.



already explained.


Umar and abu bakr are not the closest companions to rasuallah SAw in the least,the only reason you believe this is because of a few ahad ahadith spread around in bukhari and muslim,Ali (as) was the closest person to rasulallah SAW.

The narrations of abu bakr and umar being the best and being the closest to the messenger comes from abu hurarira,or aisha,both untrustworthy. For example aisha said the prophet (as) was bewitched,she hated ali (as) and many of your scholars admitted it and there is ahadith to prove it,and also the prophet SAW said none but a munafiq hates ali (as). We don't take our religion from questionable people we take it from ahlul bayt (as).


Give your proof.



If you want "kuffarism",open your hadith books there is plenty of that in there.

Is English even your first language? Seriously? It sounds like English; it even looks like English, but I can't understand a word you're blabbering. Just as the strength of a solitary brick will not save a poorly built structure, your bold typeface does not redeem your craven incoherent words.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal overdose of your Taqiyah medication. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser.

To kick things off. I'm talking about Taqiyah where you lie your asses off at face value:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HwnFxWl5YzM

Lying devil he is and your book confirms you can blatantly at any cost:

In Al-Kafi:

أحمد بن إدريس، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن الحسن بن علي، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون، عن زرارة بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني ثم جاء ه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من اهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة ! إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لنا ولكن ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم.
قال: ثم قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الاسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين، قال: فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه.

It is also narrated in Ilal Al-Sharai’i with Sa’ad bin Abdullah narrating from Mohammed bin Abdul Jabbar. The narration basically says that Zurarah asked Abu Ja’afar Al-Baqir a question. Al-Baqir responded with an answer. Then, a man came and asked the same question. He gave a different answer. When he left, another came, asked the same question, and was given a third answer. Zurarah asked, “Oh son of Rasool Allah, two men from the people of Iraq from your Shia come to you, asking, and you give each a different answer?!” He answered that this is better for the Imams and the Shias, because if the “people” had one answer, then they will be believed instead of the Imams, and they would be relied upon instead of the Imams.

One brother, passed on this translation to me:

"O Zurarah, it is better for us and it gives all of us more time. If you all would say the same thing, people will know that you speak the truth from us and this will leave all of us with less time."

Let me line out what I understood from this narration:

Al-Baqir is asked (insert random question here, i.e. permissibility of drinking juice).
Al-Baqir provides three answers.
Zurarah receives the answer: Makrooh (disliked).
Abu Al-Baseer receives the answer: Halal (permissible).
Mohammed bin Muslim receives the answer: Haram (prohibited).
One day, Jabir Al-Ju’fi wants to ask about this issue. He realizes that there is ikhtilaaf among the Shias. So, he, due to the (falsely attributed) master plan of the Al-Baqir, chooses to return to the Imam instead of relying on his Shia.
Jabir, then goes to the Imam, and receives an answer. The answer is either: 1) Disliked, 2) Permissible, or 3) Prohibited. Whichever one the Imam gives him, the chances of it being the correct fatwa is 33%.

The question is: What is the point of providing so much confusion among the Shia followers, when doing so will cause the individual to have no access to the truth? Because you cult permit one to be a deceitful and scheming twat.

Secondly, no your scholars saying prostrating in front of graves are acceptable. You even perform Salah near the place where you think your Mahdi is going re-surface - the cellar that has a hole where apparently he dwells playing Cal of Duty or on his Gameboy DS - who knows. I betcha' one can't even get their middle finger through that door to stick in his face let alone a rat.

Watch the two videos and the second one will show you how your scholars promote this unique prayer for Fatima.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90-UYwG1uA

Grave worshipers. ^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90-UYwG1uA

Fatima prayer. ^

Knock yourself out. :D

Thirdly, as far as Karbala is concerned. So it's justified for them to act in an undignified manner and scurry around dirt where he was brutally and mercilessly murdered? That narration where the Prophet was brought the dirt of Karbala does mean it's precious. That dirt deserves to be urinated over. Heck, I could careless if you want to portray yourselves as snakey scoundrels - another manifestation of the devil, which is the very fabric of your religion.

Fourthly, regarding the whore system Mutah, as I said once upon a time it was permitted and people used it wisely on the basis of necessity. The companions of Rasoullah were humble and respectful people. Since it has been banned and TripolySunni will blunder your claims on the Hadith technicalities pertaining to their authenticity. Your books encourages to abuse Mutah to the point where if a dude was marrying one girl each day just to pop his sprogs would be no different to a p1mp - geddit? I know Shia dudes who this in the UK in their University accommodation. It's Rafidah sex galore at Kingston. I have come across Shia girls who have claim they've been tapped by guys they have met at clubs via Mutah then by definition he is a p1mp. The only difference is his wallet isn't getting rinsed and has no shred of shame about it because Shi'tism declares it's allowed. So, this is why I said your girls are who indulge in such loose activities are plain sluts. You Mr. have still not answered my question if your mom or sister did this because their husband could not please them - how'd you feel? Your religion says all that is required is mutual consent no witnesses or signature required - no formalities. One cay say "baby, I want to marry you for 24 hours with the intention of Mutah to merely pleasure myself" and it the other says "Hell Yeah" - it's a done deal, LOL.

Finally, we trust our scholars who confirmed Abu Hurraira was reliable and trustworthy. Ali (RA) was second-rate compared to Abu Bakar and Omar (RA). Stick that in your command module.

Observe:

Narrated 'Amr bin Al-As:The Prophet deputed me to read the Army of Dhat-as-Salasil. I came to him and said, "Who is the most beloved person to you?" He said, " 'Aisha." I asked, "Among the men?" He said, "Her father." I said, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar bin Al-Khattab." He then named other men.


The Prophet , while in a tent (on the day of the battle of Badr) said, "O Allah! I ask you the fulfillment of Your Covenant and Promise. O Allah! If You wish (to destroy the believers) You will never be worshipped after today." Abu Bakr caught him by the hand and said, "This is sufficient, O Allah's Apostle! You have asked Allah pressingly." The Prophet was clad in his armor at that time. He went out, saying to me: "There multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs. Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense) and that Hour will be more grievous and more bitter (than their worldly failure).

Source: Sahih Bukarhi, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 309

No doubt, I am indebted to Abu Bakr more than to anybody else regarding both his companionship and his wealth. And if I had to take a Khalil from my followers, I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr, but the fraternity of Islam is sufficient. Let no Door of the Mosque remain open, except the door of Abu Bakr.

Source: Sahi Bukhari, hVolume 1, Book 8, Number 456

So on the contrary one can conclude the Companions are worthy of the most love after the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) for their herculean effort in establishing Islam, maintaining Islam and propagating it in all four corners of the globe. Yet you and your fellow Rafidahs (may Iblees be pleased with you all) have the temerity to sit there and curse them deceivingly on these forums. I'd oughta' open your skull and piss some sense into it. Actually sctatch that, I wouldn't piss on you if you were set on fire. That's how low I think of you.

So with due respect just because the Prophets family members were his "Near of Kin" does not equate them to greatness. Greatness in Islam is an accolade that can only be earned. Hussain and Hassan (RA) were promised Jannah at a young age by the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) not because he loved them, but because he knew they would die as martyrs in the name of Allah. You think the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) after his passing was ONLY going to expect Ali (RA) and his grand-sons once they have reached puberty at least to continue the growth of Islam? Since you Rafidahs (may Iblees be pleased with you) claims all of the companions become apostates and meddled with the Qu'ran riddling out the references of Ali (RA)? Yeah, that makes sense. So they must've thought:

"Yeah, we fought in the name of Islam, lost friends; families and comrades, we were willing to die for our Prophet, we've witness LIVE miracles before our functional eyes, but nah we'll go back to living our lives from many years back and just ignore the fact Aisha killed the very man we were willing to sacrifice our very existence for and oh, not to forget how Umar murdered his daughter Fatima".

Don't be P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Yes, (before you throw this at me) other nations did overlook living miracles from their Messengers (AS), but the golden detrimentally difference is the Companions were the ones who were responsible for the constructional foundation of Islam from the get-go,

This is why the true lovers of the Ahlul-Bhayt are the Companions and who loves the Companions, we Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. :)

Ask yourself the following questions:

- Who were the people the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) taught Islam to first?
- Who were those that were willing to sacrifice their lives for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) similarly the companions of Hussain who scarified their lives for him (or tried to) and for Islam?
- Who were those that DID sacrifice their lives for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW)?
- Who were those that were willing to perform 50 Salahs initially?
- Who were those waited in torture for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) to visit their home?
- Who were thos that put their lives on the line in the name of Islam in all those battles that took place in the time of the Prophet Mohammed (SAW)?
- Who were those that took Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula even after the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) passed away?
- Who were those that have been guaranteed forgiveness and Jannah for their heorism and courage?
- Who were those that Allah has said he is "pleased with them"?

The answer is the companions of the Rasulullah, which is why he said:

Do not curse my Companions. If any of you were to spend the weight of Uhud in gold, it still would not reach the measure (mudd) of one of them nor even one-half of it.


It's no wonder why Abu Bakar and Omar (RA) are buried alongside him and will be resurrected with him plus how he said the three of them are made from the same dough. If you want a narration just ask.


Companions of Rasulullah Zindabaad!!

[TripolySunni]

The entire school of the people of Makkah

Who told you the entire school of the people of Makkah did Mut`ah or permitted it? give me your source.

[TripolySunni]

Jabir ibn `Abdullah (ra)

You say he permitted Mut`ah? then you posted this authentic narration,


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 (muta of Hajj and muta of women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger pbuh Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.



Where does this say he permitted Mut`ah? he said they had done it during the time of the messenger of Allah (SAWS) and we agree on this, but we also say that they were later forbidden by the Prophet (SAWS).

If you want to consider "We used to do these" as referring to all the companions, then his saying "and so we did not revert to them" means that all the companions did not revert to doing it and this was the end of it. Secondly this shows that they accepted the opinion of `Umar (ra) and his judgement. This also shows that Jabir is from those who remained on its Tahreem and never returned to it.

Although it is known that "we" doesn't refer to the companions in general but is a term to refer to the man himself, since in another Lafth he says:

فَعَلْنَاهَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

"We did it with the messenger of Allah (SAWS)"

Meaning this "we" refers to himself not to everyone else otherwise including the Prophet (SAWS) would be strongly implied.

Also you should know that there are plenty of examples in the books about many companions not knowing major rulings and learning them way after the Prophet (SAWS) died, this is normal and common, some companions had some rulings and others didn't.

So when they heard from `Umar (ra) that the ruling of Mut`ah was abrogated they simply stopped doing it. This narrations shows a consensus that the majority of Muslims stopped doing Mut`ah and agree on it's impressibility after hearing `Umar's (ra) words.

[TripolySunni]

`Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra)

You also included in your list of those who permitted Mut`ah `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) and from what i can see it has been authentically attributed to him that he forbade Mut`ah in Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.

And this was narrated from several routes leading to Isma`eel all mentioning that it was prohibited in the tail.

Also ibn Mas`oud (ra) was known to be from those who respected `Umar (ra) and was trusted by him:

الثوري : عن أبي إسحاق ، عن حارثة بن مضرب قال : كتب عمر بن الخطاب إلى أهل الكوفة : إنني قد بعثت إليكم عمارا أميرا، وابن مسعود معلما ووزيرا ، وهما من النجباء من أصحاب محمد -صلى الله عليه وسلم- من أهل بدر ، فاسمعوا لهما واقتدوا بهما ، وقد آثرتكم بعبد الله على نفسي .


Suffiyan al-Thawri from abi Ishaq from Harithah ibn Mudrib that he said: `Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to the people of Kufa: "I have sent you `Ammar ibn Yassir as an Emir(leader) and `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud as an adviser and teacher, they are from the most knowledgeable of the companions of Muhammad (SAWS) from the people of Badr..."

[Sultaan]

Baytul-Shaytaan, these are the "akhlaaq" of your Rafidhi ilk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrb5X78_hVk

And again, mu'ta is a fiqh matter, and Ibn Abbas testified to the Iman of Abu Bakr and Umar so you are much more obligated by that, unlike your Satanic sect which makes takfeer of the shaykhan and favours the Imam of kufr like Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bashar, Michel Aoun, over them?
Why were you hypocritical Lebanese Rafidha totally silent on your Rafidhi buddies who rode to power on American tanks in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[baytul-herz24]

You say ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted Mut`ah right? but as you know that the Prophet (SAWS) only permitted it in Jihad as a Rukhsa back then and then it was banned forever, in this case let me show you what kind of Mut`ah ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted:

قال أبو بكر الإسماعيلي في المستخرج: أنبأ يوسف القاضي: ثنا عمرو بن مرزوق: أنبأ شعبة، عن أبي جمرة، عن ابن عباس: أنه سُئِلَ عن متعة النساء، فقال مولى له: إنما كان ذلك في الجهاد والنساء قليل؟!. قال: فقال ابن عباس: صدق

Abu Bakr al-Isma`ilee in his Mustakhraj: Yusuf al-Qadi told, `Amro bin Marzuq told us, Shu`bah told us, from abi Hamzah, from ibn `Abbas (ra): That he was asked about the Mut`ah of women, so a Mawla of his asked him: "It is only in Jihad and there aren't many women!?" ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "That's true."

Grading: Sahih.


This hadith is questionable,the only person who gives yunus al qaadi tawtheeq is bayhaqi from what I'm seeing.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt,this does not mean that he didn't believe muta3 was invalid nor that it couldn't still be done,and also who cares about the details of his opinion on the matter is? The fact of the matter is,he didn't believe muta3 was banned.



In other words his Mut`ah is not like the Shia Mut`ah which is done whenever. It is in the case of Jihad where there aren't many women.

Really? Asma bint abu bakr was in jihad? No? Then why did she do muta3?

So you're telling me that abu bakr gave his daughter to a soldier who was in jihad for muta3?


Secondly, when ibn `Umar (ra) was told that ibn `Abbas (ra) permits Mut`ah, he said in the authentic narrations:

ما أظن ابن عباس يقول هذا

"I do not think that ibn `Abbas would say this."

and in another narration:

معاذ الله! ما أظن ابن عباس يفعل هذا

"I seek refuge in Allah! I do not believe ibn `Abbas would do this."


What does ibn umar have to do with anything? We don't care about his opinion.



In other words if this was an acceptable saying or a popular opinion, ibn `Umar (ra) would not be so surprised or offended.

There were many popular and obvious opinions that ibn umar did not follow so your argument is not valid.


Then he says:

أما والله ما كان ليقول هذا في زمن عمر. وإن كان عمر ليُنَكّلَكُم عن مِثْلِ هذا. وما أعلمه إلا السِّفاح

"By Allah this would not be in the time of `Umar, `Umar would punish them for this. I only know that it is Zinah(adultery)."

This does nothing to refute my argument that umar was the one who banned muta3 ,you're actually reinforcing it.


So ibn `Abbas (ra) never voiced an opinion during the time of `Umar (ra) since `Umar (ra) used to b strict in his prohibition of Mut`ah. He did so later maybe in the time of `Ali (ra), this is why when this happened `Ali (ra) called on ibn `Abbas (ra) and told him:

إنكَ رجلٌ تائهٌ ، أما علمتَ أن رسولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن المتعةِ

"You are a misguided man, did you not know that the Prophet (SAWS) prohibited the Nikah of Mut`ah"


Hadith is weak.



ibn `Umar (ra) goes further to say:

وهل كان ابن عباس على عهد رسول الله إلا غلاماً صغيراً؟

"Ibn `Abbas was only a little boy during the time of the Prophet (SAWS)."

Well if he was a little boy then his opinions on the details of muta3 would be invalid.

But we know for a fact that he held that opinion and so did his students according to your own scholars even after ali (as).

[baytul-herz24]

You also included in your list of those who permitted Mut`ah `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) and from what i can see it has been authentically attributed to him that he forbade Mut`ah in Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.


Sahih really?

The person qays ibn abi haazim is munkar al hadith.

وقال 1 علي بْن المديني قال لي يَحْيَى بْن سَعِيد 1: 2 قَيْس بْن أَبِي حازم منكر الحديث ثُمَّ ذكر له يَحْيَى أحاديث مناكير منها حديث كلاب الحوأب

The hadith at best is debatable.


It also contradicts the widely reported position of abdullah ibn masud that both ibn hajr al asqalani and ibn hazim confirmed.



Who told you the entire school of the people of Makkah did Mut`ah or permitted it? give me your source

This is from ibn hazm and ibn hajr al asqalani confirmed it.


: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير


وسائر فقهاء مكة

[baytul-herz24]

Just as the strength of a solitary brick will not save a poorly built structure, your bold typeface does not redeem your craven incoherent words.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal overdose of your Taqiyah medication. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser.

To kick things off. I'm talking about Taqiyah where you lie your asses off at face value:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HwnFxWl5YzM

Lying devil he is and your book confirms you can blatantly at any cost:

In Al-Kafi:

أحمد بن إدريس، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن الحسن بن علي، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون، عن زرارة بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني ثم جاء ه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من اهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة ! إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لنا ولكن ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم.
قال: ثم قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الاسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين، قال: فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه.

It is also narrated in Ilal Al-Sharai’i with Sa’ad bin Abdullah narrating from Mohammed bin Abdul Jabbar. The narration basically says that Zurarah asked Abu Ja’afar Al-Baqir a question. Al-Baqir responded with an answer. Then, a man came and asked the same question. He gave a different answer. When he left, another came, asked the same question, and was given a third answer. Zurarah asked, “Oh son of Rasool Allah, two men from the people of Iraq from your Shia come to you, asking, and you give each a different answer?!” He answered that this is better for the Imams and the Shias, because if the “people” had one answer, then they will be believed instead of the Imams, and they would be relied upon instead of the Imams.

One brother, passed on this translation to me:

"O Zurarah, it is better for us and it gives all of us more time. If you all would say the same thing, people will know that you speak the truth from us and this will leave all of us with less time."

Let me line out what I understood from this narration:

Al-Baqir is asked (insert random question here, i.e. permissibility of drinking juice).
Al-Baqir provides three answers.
Zurarah receives the answer: Makrooh (disliked).
Abu Al-Baseer receives the answer: Halal (permissible).
Mohammed bin Muslim receives the answer: Haram (prohibited).
One day, Jabir Al-Ju’fi wants to ask about this issue. He realizes that there is ikhtilaaf among the Shias. So, he, due to the (falsely attributed) master plan of the Al-Baqir, chooses to return to the Imam instead of relying on his Shia.
Jabir, then goes to the Imam, and receives an answer. The answer is either: 1) Disliked, 2) Permissible, or 3) Prohibited. Whichever one the Imam gives him, the chances of it being the correct fatwa is 33%.

The question is: What is the point of providing so much confusion among the Shia followers, when doing so will cause the individual to have no access to the truth? Because you cult permit one to be a deceitful and scheming twat.

Secondly, no your scholars saying prostrating in front of graves are acceptable. You even perform Salah near the place where you think your Mahdi is going re-surface - the cellar that has a hole where apparently he dwells playing Cal of Duty or on his Gameboy DS - who knows. I betcha' one can't even get their middle finger through that door to stick in his face let alone a rat.

Watch the two videos and the second one will show you how your scholars promote this unique prayer for Fatima.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90-UYwG1uA

Grave worshipers. ^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90-UYwG1uA

Fatima prayer. ^

Knock yourself out. :D

Thirdly, as far as Karbala is concerned. So it's justified for them to act in an undignified manner and scurry around dirt where he was brutally and mercilessly murdered? That narration where the Prophet was brought the dirt of Karbala does mean it's precious. That dirt deserves to be urinated over. Heck, I could careless if you want to portray yourselves as snakey scoundrels - another manifestation of the devil, which is the very fabric of your religion.

Fourthly, regarding the whore system Mutah, as I said once upon a time it was permitted and people used it wisely on the basis of necessity. The companions of Rasoullah were humble and respectful people. Since it has been banned and TripolySunni will blunder your claims on the Hadith technicalities pertaining to their authenticity. Your books encourages to abuse Mutah to the point where if a dude was marrying one girl each day just to pop his sprogs would be no different to a p1mp - geddit? I know Shia dudes who this in the UK in their University accommodation. It's Rafidah sex galore at Kingston. I have come across Shia girls who have claim they've been tapped by guys they have met at clubs via Mutah then by definition he is a p1mp. The only difference is his wallet isn't getting rinsed and has no shred of shame about it because Shi'tism declares it's allowed. So, this is why I said your girls are who indulge in such loose activities are plain sluts. You Mr. have still not answered my question if your mom or sister did this because their husband could not please them - how'd you feel? Your religion says all that is required is mutual consent no witnesses or signature required - no formalities. One cay say "baby, I want to marry you for 24 hours with the intention of Mutah to merely pleasure myself" and it the other says "Hell Yeah" - it's a done deal, LOL.

Finally, we trust our scholars who confirmed Abu Hurraira was reliable and trustworthy. Ali (RA) was second-rate compared to Abu Bakar and Omar (RA). Stick that in your command module.

Observe:

Narrated 'Amr bin Al-As:The Prophet deputed me to read the Army of Dhat-as-Salasil. I came to him and said, "Who is the most beloved person to you?" He said, " 'Aisha." I asked, "Among the men?" He said, "Her father." I said, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar bin Al-Khattab." He then named other men.


The Prophet , while in a tent (on the day of the battle of Badr) said, "O Allah! I ask you the fulfillment of Your Covenant and Promise. O Allah! If You wish (to destroy the believers) You will never be worshipped after today." Abu Bakr caught him by the hand and said, "This is sufficient, O Allah's Apostle! You have asked Allah pressingly." The Prophet was clad in his armor at that time. He went out, saying to me: "There multitude will be put to flight and they will show their backs. Nay, but the Hour is their appointed time (for their full recompense) and that Hour will be more grievous and more bitter (than their worldly failure).

Source: Sahih Bukarhi, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 309

No doubt, I am indebted to Abu Bakr more than to anybody else regarding both his companionship and his wealth. And if I had to take a Khalil from my followers, I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr, but the fraternity of Islam is sufficient. Let no Door of the Mosque remain open, except the door of Abu Bakr.

Source: Sahi Bukhari, hVolume 1, Book 8, Number 456

So on the contrary one can conclude the Companions are worthy of the most love after the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) for their herculean effort in establishing Islam, maintaining Islam and propagating it in all four corners of the globe. Yet you and your fellow Rafidahs (may Iblees be pleased with you all) have the temerity to sit there and curse them deceivingly on these forums. I'd oughta' open your skull and piss some sense into it. Actually sctatch that, I wouldn't piss on you if you were set on fire. That's how low I think of you.

So with due respect just because the Prophets family members were his "Near of Kin" does not equate them to greatness. Greatness in Islam is an accolade that can only be earned. Hussain and Hassan (RA) were promised Jannah at a young age by the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) not because he loved them, but because he knew they would die as martyrs in the name of Allah. You think the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) after his passing was ONLY going to expect Ali (RA) and his grand-sons once they have reached puberty at least to continue the growth of Islam? Since you Rafidahs (may Iblees be pleased with you) claims all of the companions become apostates and meddled with the Qu'ran riddling out the references of Ali (RA)? Yeah, that makes sense. So they must've thought:

"Yeah, we fought in the name of Islam, lost friends; families and comrades, we were willing to die for our Prophet, we've witness LIVE miracles before our functional eyes, but nah we'll go back to living our lives from many years back and just ignore the fact Aisha killed the very man we were willing to sacrifice our very existence for and oh, not to forget how Umar murdered his daughter Fatima".

Don't be P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Yes, (before you throw this at me) other nations did overlook living miracles from their Messengers (AS), but the golden detrimentally difference is the Companions were the ones who were responsible for the constructional foundation of Islam from the get-go,

This is why the true lovers of the Ahlul-Bhayt are the Companions and who loves the Companions, we Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. :)

Ask yourself the following questions:

- Who were the people the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) taught Islam to first?
- Who were those that were willing to sacrifice their lives for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) similarly the companions of Hussain who scarified their lives for him (or tried to) and for Islam?
- Who were those that DID sacrifice their lives for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW)?
- Who were those that were willing to perform 50 Salahs initially?
- Who were those waited in torture for the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) to visit their home?
- Who were thos that put their lives on the line in the name of Islam in all those battles that took place in the time of the Prophet Mohammed (SAW)?
- Who were those that took Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula even after the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) passed away?
- Who were those that have been guaranteed forgiveness and Jannah for their heorism and courage?
- Who were those that Allah has said he is "pleased with them"?

The answer is the companions of the Rasulullah, which is why he said:

Do not curse my Companions. If any of you were to spend the weight of Uhud in gold, it still would not reach the measure (mudd) of one of them nor even one-half of it.


It's no wonder why Abu Bakar and Omar (RA) are buried alongside him and will be resurrected with him plus how he said the three of them are made from the same dough. If you want a narration just ask.


Companions of Rasulullah Zindabaad!!


Most of your post were cuss words and insults so I'll respond to the relevant parts.


Regarding this hadith :



أحمد بن إدريس، عن محمد بن عبدالجبار، عن الحسن بن علي، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون، عن زرارة بن أعين، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: سألته عن مسألة فأجابني ثم جاء ه رجل فسأله عنها فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني، ثم جاء رجل آخر فأجابه بخلاف ما أجابني وأجاب صاحبي، فلما خرج الرجلان قلت: يا ابن رسول الله رجلان من اهل العراق من شيعتكم قدما يسألان فأجبت كل واحد منهما بغير ما أجبت به صاحبه؟ فقال: يا زرارة ! إن هذا خير لنا وأبقى لنا ولكن ولو اجتمعتم على أمر واحد لصدقكم الناس علينا ولكان أقل لبقائنا وبقائكم.
قال: ثم قلت لابي عبدالله عليه السلام: شيعتكم لو حملتموهم على الاسنة أو على النار لمضوا وهم يخرجون من عندكم مختلفين، قال: فأجابني بمثل جواب أبيه.


The imams (as) have explained clearly in other ahadith that ja3far as sadiq (as) would give 2 or 3 different answers so his fiqh opinions wouldn't be traced back to him by the government,because if they find out that he has his own set of fiqh rulings they can easily establish who is a shia and who isn't and thus they would be killed. The imams (as) has given us tools and ability to tell the difference between a hadith done in taqiyya to protect the lives of the shia and a hadith done in non-taqiyya,there is actually a whole science on this.


Any other hadith?



Lets look at your hadith.


Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect). Then one day he said, "O ‘Aisha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other, ‘What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied he is under the effect of magic. The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Labid bin Al-A’sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.’ The first one asked, ‘What material did he use?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hair stuck to it.’ The first one asked, ‘Where (is that)?’ The other replied, ‘In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan.’" So the Prophet went to that well and took out those things and said, "That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream). Its water looked like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palm trees looked like the heads of devils." The Prophet added, "Then that thing was taken out." I said (to the Prophet) "Why do you not treat yourself with Nashra?" He said, "Allah has cured me; I dislike to let evil spread among my people." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660)

Narrated Aisha:
Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 400)

Explain to me these ahadith first and when we can move on,this hadith is kufr,who in their right mind who claim that a messenger of Allah was possessed and had a magic spell on him.

[TripolySunni]

This hadith is questionable,the only person who gives yunus al qaadi tawtheeq is bayhaqi from what I'm seeing.

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt,this does not mean that he didn't believe muta3 was invalid nor that it couldn't still be done,and also who cares about the details of his opinion on the matter is? The fact of the matter is,he didn't believe muta3 was banned.

Firstly it's Yusuf al-Qadi not Yunus al-Qadi, and the Hadith is extremely authentic, The Mut`ah which he believed in is the one practiced not your invented one and it is only done in the most extreme of cases.
Secondly the Hadith has a solid Shahid from Sahih al-Bukhari so don't worry your little head. (it doesn't require a Shahid).




Really? Asma bint abu bakr was in jihad? No? Then why did she do muta3?

So you're telling me that abu bakr gave his daughter to a soldier who was in jihad for muta3?

We'll get to Asma bint abu Bakr soon don't worry.





What does ibn umar have to do with anything? We don't care about his opinion.

That's only because you're a filthy hypocrite, if there was one narration from ibn `Umar (ra) permitting Mut`ah you'd be the first to quote it and adopt his opinion, ibn `Umar (ra) was superior to ibn `Abbas (ra) and his reputation is that he was the one who followed the Sunnah closer than anyone else even if he has to disagree with his father:

In al-Tirmithy, Salim bin Abdullah said to Ibne Shahab, “I heard that a Syrian asked Abdullah bin Umar about Mutah of Hajj. Abdullah bin Umar said that it was permissible. The Syrian said that the latter’s father had prohibited it. Abdullah bin Umar said, ‘My father prohibited it but the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) used to practice it. Then, should one obey my father or the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.)? What is your opinion?’ The Syrian said that one should obey the command of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.).”


Jabir ibn `Abdullah (ra) that you quoted in the previous post of yours says about him:

جابر: ما منا أحد إلا مالت به الدنيا، ومال بها إلا ابن عمر

"There isn't anyone of us who wasn't swayed by the worldly life and distracted by it except ibn `Umar."




There were many popular and obvious opinions that ibn umar did not follow so your argument is not valid.

Nope, if ibn `Umar (ra) knew that the Prophet (SAWS) said something he would follow it, besides I said "If the opinion was so popular ibn `Umar wouldn't be so surprised."



This does nothing to refute my argument that umar was the one who banned muta3 ,you're actually reinforcing it.

Nope, it just says that the companion considered it Zinah, this is because it was forbidden by the Prophet (SAWS), and he says that `Umar (ra) used to punish for it.



Hadith is weak.

Your knowledge is weak, this Hadith has one of the strongest chains possible, narrated from Imam ibn SHihab al-Zuhri, from the two sons of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, from ibn al-Hanafiyyah (ra) himself, then from `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra).




Well if he was a little boy then his opinions on the details of muta3 would be invalid.

But we know for a fact that he held that opinion and so did his students according to your own scholars even after ali (as).

No they would be valid since he's mentioning the details, but the prohibition simply didn't reach him because if it did he would have mentioned it as well, later it reached him through other companions but it could be that he stuck to his opinion and method.

But here's the deal, who cares about the personal opinion and Madhab of one Sahabi if the prohibition reached us from several others?

[TripolySunni]

Sahih really?

The person qays ibn abi haazim is munkar al hadith.

وقال 1 علي بْن المديني قال لي يَحْيَى بْن سَعِيد 1: 2 قَيْس بْن أَبِي حازم منكر الحديث ثُمَّ ذكر له يَحْيَى أحاديث مناكير منها حديث كلاب الحوأب

The hadith at best is debatable.


It also contradicts the widely reported position of abdullah ibn masud that both ibn hajr al asqalani and ibn hazim confirmed.

At best you've made a mistake but in reality you're a hypocrite and this is the Tawtheeq of this man from the vast majority of our scholars below, also Hadith Kilab al-Haw'ab is Sahih so it's not a Munkar.



1 أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي ذكره في الثقات
2 أبو دواد السجستاني أجود التابعين إسنادا
3 إسماعيل بن أبي خالد حدثني الأسطوانة يعني أنه في الثقة مثل الأسطوانة، ومرة: كان ثبتا، وقال: كبر حتى جاز المائة حتى خرف وذهب عقله
4 ابن أبي عاصم النبيل ثقة
5 ابن حجر العسقلاني ثقة وتغير، وقال مرة: مخضرم أدرك الجاهلية وهاجر إلى النبي فلم يلقه
6 الذهبي لم أر مثله، أجمعوا على الاحتجاج به، ومن تكلم فيه فقد آذى نفسه، ومرة: وثقوه، ومرة: عن أبي بكر وعمر ثقة حجة، كاد أن يكون صحابيا
7 المزي من الثقات
8 سبط ابن العجمي قال: حجة كاد أن يكون صحابيا
9 سفيان بن عيينة أروى أهل الكوفة عن الصحابة
10 عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش جليل، وليس في التابعين أحد روى عن العشرة إلا قيس بن أبي حازم
11 يحيى بن سعيد القطان منكر الحديث
12 يحيى بن معين ثقة، ومرة: أوثق من الزهري، ومن السائب بن يزيد

This is one of the most trustworthy narrators in the history of narrating, this Hadith is by no means debatable, it is the most authentic narration you can ever come across.





This is from ibn hazm and ibn hajr al asqalani confirmed it.


: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير


وسائر فقهاء مكة

I don't see a chain of narrators, do you?

[mohamedeb]

The worst thing I ever heard an Iraqi shia say was the following;

If it wasn't for the martyrdom of Hussain (ra) then there wouldn't have been any islam today!
====>I replied (as a reflex); "I thought Allah protected the Quran and thus Islam"

=============>Iraqi shia; "SILENCED"! (Overdramatizing a person's death, a sad death but nonetheless overdramatized)

[wellwisher]

At best you've made a mistake but in reality you're a hypocrite and this is the Tawtheeq of this man from the vast majority of our scholars below, also Hadith Kilab al-Haw'ab is Sahih so it's not a Munkar.



1 أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي ذكره في الثقات
2 أبو دواد السجستاني أجود التابعين إسنادا
3 إسماعيل بن أبي خالد حدثني الأسطوانة يعني أنه في الثقة مثل الأسطوانة، ومرة: كان ثبتا، وقال: كبر حتى جاز المائة حتى خرف وذهب عقله
4 ابن أبي عاصم النبيل ثقة
5 ابن حجر العسقلاني ثقة وتغير، وقال مرة: مخضرم أدرك الجاهلية وهاجر إلى النبي فلم يلقه
6 الذهبي لم أر مثله، أجمعوا على الاحتجاج به، ومن تكلم فيه فقد آذى نفسه، ومرة: وثقوه، ومرة: عن أبي بكر وعمر ثقة حجة، كاد أن يكون صحابيا
7 المزي من الثقات
8 سبط ابن العجمي قال: حجة كاد أن يكون صحابيا
9 سفيان بن عيينة أروى أهل الكوفة عن الصحابة
10 عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش جليل، وليس في التابعين أحد روى عن العشرة إلا قيس بن أبي حازم
11 يحيى بن سعيد القطان منكر الحديث
12 يحيى بن معين ثقة، ومرة: أوثق من الزهري، ومن السائب بن يزيد

This is one of the most trustworthy narrators in the history of narrating, this Hadith is by no means debatable, it is the most authentic narration you can ever come across.






I don't see a chain of narrators, do you?

Akhee I would like to bring it to your attention that, Imam Yayha ibn Saeed Qattan, has done jarh on some narrators who were considered thiqa and acceptable for example, Imam Jafar sadiq. Yet vast majority of hadeeth scholars considered Imam Jafar to thiqa.

[TripolySunni]

Akhee I would like to bring it to your attention that, Imam Yayha ibn Saeed Qattan, has done jarh on some narrators who were considered thiqa and acceptable for example, Imam Jafar sadiq. Yet vast majority of hadeeth scholars considered Imam Jafar to thiqa.

It's true that al-Qattan made Jarh on major trustworthy narrators like Ja`far al-Sadiq (rah), for example:

قال مصعب: كان مالك يضمه إلى آخر. وقال علي عن يحيى بن سعيد، قال: أملى علي جعفر بن محمد الحديث الطويل، يعني في الحج ثم قال: وفي نفسي منه شيء مجالد أحب إلي منه.

Yet this hypocrite and follower of his desires left the consensus of the people of knowledge to follow the Shadh opinion of al-Qattan although those who are much more worthy than him made Tawtheeq of the man, Imam al-Dhahabi's (rah) judgement is more than enough on this narrator for those who follow the science sincerely.

[baytul-herz24]

At best you've made a mistake but in reality you're a hypocrite and this is the Tawtheeq of this man from the vast majority of our scholars below, also Hadith Kilab al-Haw'ab is Sahih so it's not a Munkar.



1 أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي ذكره في الثقات
2 أبو دواد السجستاني أجود التابعين إسنادا
3 إسماعيل بن أبي خالد حدثني الأسطوانة يعني أنه في الثقة مثل الأسطوانة، ومرة: كان ثبتا، وقال: كبر حتى جاز المائة حتى خرف وذهب عقله
4 ابن أبي عاصم النبيل ثقة
5 ابن حجر العسقلاني ثقة وتغير، وقال مرة: مخضرم أدرك الجاهلية وهاجر إلى النبي فلم يلقه
6 الذهبي لم أر مثله، أجمعوا على الاحتجاج به، ومن تكلم فيه فقد آذى نفسه، ومرة: وثقوه، ومرة: عن أبي بكر وعمر ثقة حجة، كاد أن يكون صحابيا
7 المزي من الثقات
8 سبط ابن العجمي قال: حجة كاد أن يكون صحابيا
9 سفيان بن عيينة أروى أهل الكوفة عن الصحابة
10 عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش جليل، وليس في التابعين أحد روى عن العشرة إلا قيس بن أبي حازم
11 يحيى بن سعيد القطان منكر الحديث
12 يحيى بن معين ثقة، ومرة: أوثق من الزهري، ومن السائب بن يزيد

This is one of the most trustworthy narrators in the history of narrating, this Hadith is by no means debatable, it is the most authentic narration you can ever come across.






I don't see a chain of narrators, do you?

I didn't make a mistake,you're just a nasibi in taqleed of umar and his son.


If a narrator has mixed grading he becomes mamduh,the chain is not considered sahih but rather debatable or hasan. If this is the case then if a hasan or any ahad hadith for that matter is contracted by multiple narrations and evidences then the chain becomes shadh.


But who cares about this hadith? We don't care about ibn abbas's opinion on the details,what me and you care about is the banning of muta3.

Basically the only counter arguments I've seen is "umar said this", "Ibn umar said that".


If you guys are going to use these 2 have as proofs you might as well kill yourselves or become christians like the sunnis in lebanon.

[baytul-herz24]

It's true that al-Qattan made Jarh on major trustworthy narrators like Ja`far al-Sadiq (rah), for example:

قال مصعب: كان مالك يضمه إلى آخر. وقال علي عن يحيى بن سعيد، قال: أملى علي جعفر بن محمد الحديث الطويل، يعني في الحج ثم قال: وفي نفسي منه شيء مجالد أحب إلي منه.

Yet this hypocrite and follower of his desires left the consensus of the people of knowledge to follow the Shadh opinion of al-Qattan although those who are much more worthy than him made Tawtheeq of the man, Imam al-Dhahabi's (rah) judgement is more than enough on this narrator for those who follow the science sincerely.

Sunni tawtheeq is unreliable and bias,they will try to strengthen a narrator if they show any type of anti-shi'i ahadith.



I'm using established historical arguments such as the entire school of mecca and a sunni school called tabarani school allowing mut3 and this person is asking for a chain like a robot.


If the entire school of mecca was famous for this belief ,an entire city,then I think it is pretty well historically established and for you to ask for a chain just shows how dogmatic and robotic you are.

[TripolySunni]

This hadith is questionable,the only person who gives yunus al qaadi tawtheeq is bayhaqi from what I'm seeing.


No not only al-Bayhaqi, ya Jahil! This is from Siyar al-A`lam al-Nubala', al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi (rah) says about Yusuf al-Qadi:

قال الخطيب (1): كان ثقة، صالحا، عفيفا، مهيبا، سديد الاحكام.

"al-Khateeb said, He was a Thiqah, ..."

[wellwisher]

Sunni tawtheeq is unreliable and bias,they will try to strengthen a narrator if they show any type of anti-shi'i ahadith.

This alegation was based on complete ignorance(Jahalat).

Sunni scholar Ali ibn al-Madeeni’s ruling that his father was da’eef (weak), and he knew that this ruling regarding his father would guarantee an end to his position as a scholar, but that did not prevent him from stating his opinion concerning him.

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: None of the people of hadeeth should show any favouritism with regard to the science of hadeeth, whether it is to his father or his son. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Madeeni, who was a prominent scholar of hadeeth in his time, never narrated even a letter to suggest that his father was strong in hadeeth, rather what was narrated from him was the opposite of that.[End quote from Sharaf Ashaab al-Hadeeth (41)].

Ibn Hibbaan said in al-Majrooheen (2/15): ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni was asked about his father and he said: Ask someone else. They said: We asked you. He paused, then he raised his head and said: This has to do with religion; my father is da’eef (weak).

And Yahya ibn Ma’een spoke about a friend of his whom he loved, and al-Husayn ibn Hibbaan narrated that he said of Muhammad ibn Saleem al-Qaadi: By Allaah, he is our friend, and he is dear to us, but there is no way to praise him and I do not recommend anyone to narrate from him or encourage others to do so. And he said: By Allaah, he heard a great deal and he is well known, but he does not limit himself to what he heard, rather he includes things that he did not hear. I said to him: Should he be narrated from? He said: No. [Tareekh Baghdaad (5/325). ]

[TripolySunni]

I didn't make a mistake,you're just a nasibi in taqleed of umar and his son.

thx, this is the Akhlaq of Ahlul-Bayt ; )



If a narrator has mixed grading he becomes mamduh,the chain is not considered sahih but rather debatable or hasan. If this is the case then if a hasan or any ahad hadith for that matter is contracted by multiple narrations and evidences then the chain becomes shadh.

What does it contradict? post those chains that it contradicts.

FYI, this is pretty much a very solid authentic chain for `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra).

btw his weakening is Shadh, his strengthening is agreed upon, he is from Kibar al-Tabi`een and a major narrator, so your entire analysis is baseless and this argument is empty and if your problem is Tafarrud then you should know that the big Tabi`een often do Tafarrud and the scholars always accept their Tafarrud.

You sound desperate in weakening this one im sorry. ALSO by doing this you are weakening the narration that says the dogs of Haw'ab barked on `Aisha (ra), so thankx a lot for that, it's now Munkar according to your genius analysis and this helped us refute a very big Shia argument lol. We've been trying to weaken it for years but now thx to you our dilemma ends.



But who cares about this hadith? We don't care about ibn abbas's opinion on the details,what me and you care about is the banning of muta3.

Basically the only counter arguments I've seen is "umar said this", "Ibn umar said that".

You mean the banning that was authentically narrated by `Ali (ra) and `Umar (ra) and ibn Mas`oud (ra) and Iyas ibn Salamah from his father and others such as the narrations from al-Rabi` ibn Subrah al-Juhani from his father that the prophet (SAWS) said:

يا أيها الناس، إني قد كنت أذنت لكم في الاستمتاع من النساء. وإن الله قد حرم ذلك إلى يوم القيامة.

"O people, I had given you permission to make Tamattu` with women. and Allah had forbidden this until the day of Resurrection."

[TripolySunni]

I'm using established historical arguments such as the entire school of mecca and a sunni school called tabarani school allowing mut3 and this person is asking for a chain like a robot.


Ah! just a moment ago you were weakening and strengthening and commenting on the narrators as it suited you and taking Shadh opinions, suddenly now you don't care about the science of Hadith? why? because you can't prove your claim?

more Shia hypocrisy...

Anyways, your chain ; )

[TripolySunni]

This is from ibn hazm and ibn hajr al asqalani confirmed it.


: وقد ثبت على تحليلها بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جماعة من السلف رضي الله عنهم منهم من الصحابة رضى الله عنهم:
أسماء بنت أبى بكر الصديق
وجابر بن عبد الله
وابن مسعود
وابن عباس
ومعاوية بن أبى سفيان
وعمرو بن حريث
وأبو سعيد الخدري
وسلمة، ومعبد ابناء أمية بن خلف
ومن التابعين:
طاوس
وعطاء
وسعيد بن جبير


وسائر فقهاء مكة

Wait wait wait LOL! You said the Umayyads did Tahreem of Mut`ah and fabricated narrations saying that Mut`ah was forbidden!? Now you quote me a list of people who believed that Mut`ah was valid and the list contains Mu`awiyah ibn abi Suffiyan (ra)!? LOL!


Look at what you said you dummy:


You mean to tell me,that you're going to bring me ahadith that are probably forged by the umuyyads anyways,filled with tadlees and faulty tawtheeq and supposedly out of all the people on earth ali (as) telling everyone that muta3 is now banned forever?


but the ahadith you're bring are nothing but obvious forgeries claiming ali (as) is the one going around telling everyone muta3 is banned. Its an obvious umuyyad fabrication,and I say this because the ahadith you bring to me cannot be reconciled with the evidences.

[baytul-herz24]

Wait wait wait LOL! You said the Umayyads did Tahreem of Mut`ah and fabricated narrations saying that Mut`ah was forbidden!? Now you quote me a list of people who believed that Mut`ah was valid and the list contains Mu`awiyah ibn abi Suffiyan (ra)!? LOL!


Look at what you said you dummy:


At best you've made a mistake but in reality you're a hypocrite and this is the Tawtheeq of this man from the vast majority of our scholars below, also Hadith Kilab al-Haw'ab is Sahih so it's not a Munkar.



1 أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي ذكره في الثقات
2 أبو دواد السجستاني أجود التابعين إسنادا
3 إسماعيل بن أبي خالد حدثني الأسطوانة يعني أنه في الثقة مثل الأسطوانة، ومرة: كان ثبتا، وقال: كبر حتى جاز المائة حتى خرف وذهب عقله
4 ابن أبي عاصم النبيل ثقة
5 ابن حجر العسقلاني ثقة وتغير، وقال مرة: مخضرم أدرك الجاهلية وهاجر إلى النبي فلم يلقه
6 الذهبي لم أر مثله، أجمعوا على الاحتجاج به، ومن تكلم فيه فقد آذى نفسه، ومرة: وثقوه، ومرة: عن أبي بكر وعمر ثقة حجة، كاد أن يكون صحابيا
7 المزي من الثقات
8 سبط ابن العجمي قال: حجة كاد أن يكون صحابيا
9 سفيان بن عيينة أروى أهل الكوفة عن الصحابة
10 عبد الرحمن بن يوسف بن خراش جليل، وليس في التابعين أحد روى عن العشرة إلا قيس بن أبي حازم
11 يحيى بن سعيد القطان منكر الحديث
12 يحيى بن معين ثقة، ومرة: أوثق من الزهري، ومن السائب بن يزيد

This is one of the most trustworthy narrators in the history of narrating, this Hadith is by no means debatable, it is the most authentic narration you can ever come across.






I don't see a chain of narrators, do you?

I didn't make a mistake,you're just a nasibi in taqleed of umar and his son.


If a narrator has mixed grading he becomes mamduh,the chain is not considered sahih but rather debatable or hasan. If this is the case then if a hasan or any ahad hadith for that matter is contracted by multiple narrations and evidences then the chain becomes shadh.


But who cares about this hadith? We don't care about ibn abbas's opinion on the details,what me and you care about is the banning of muta3.

Basically the only counter arguments I've seen is "umar said this", "Ibn umar said that".


If you guys are going to use these 2 have as proofs you might as well kill yourselves or become christians like the sunnis in lebanon. All of your your early scholars admitted that muta3 being permitted as the prominent opinion.


Answer every point I bring or I will bring it back up into you do.

Lets look at some materials in the sunni books.

قال تعالى:
«فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن»
النساء: 24

وعن عمران بن الحصين أنه قال: نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله ففعلناها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ولم ينزل قرآن يحرمه ولم ينه عنها حتى مات، قال رجل برأيه ما شاء، قال محمد «أي البخاري» يقال عمر رضي الله عنه.
صحيح البخاري، باب قوله تعالى: «وانفقوا في سبيل الله ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة» من كتاب التفسير من جزئه الثالث ص71.

This is a classical sunni tafseer on surah an nisa which talks about muta3,he post a hadith from sahih bukhari on this verse.

"The verse of muta3 was revealed in the book of allah,so did this with rasulallah (saw) and there was not a verse that was sent down that forbade it even until the prophet's SAW death,a man(umar) spoke with his opinion".

Some people try to argue like my nasibi friend hani that this hadith is referring to muta3 al hajj,but this is false.


This is the opinion of Muslim and Bukhari who placed in their commentaries in the matn and placed this hadith in their chapters regarding hajj.

وقال ايضا:وحسبك على إباحة المتعة ما أخرجه البخاري في صحيحه من كتاب التفسير في باب قوله تعالى : ( وأنفقوا في سبيل الله ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة ) عن عمران بن الحصين أنه قال : ( نزلت المتعة في كتاب الله ففعلناها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه ( وآله ) وسلّم ولم ينزل قرآن يحرمها ولم ينه عنها حتى مات ? قال رجل برأيه ما شاء . قال محمد – يعني البخاري – يقال عمر ) (1).
أقول : هذا ما أخرجه البخاري في صحيحه ? وهو من أصح الكتب بعد القرآن عند أهل السنة ? فقد نص بصريح العبارة التي لا تقبل التأويل على إباحة المتعة .

قلت : صاحب الكتاب لم يعلم او قصد التدليس على الناس ان المتعه هنا متعه الحج وليست متعة النساء . فهذا ليس بدليل .

ثم قال القزويني: كما أنه صريح أيضاً في أن المحرم لها هو الخليفة عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه ?

اقول: عمر الفاروق صهر الرسول (ص) وعلي لم يحرم متعة الحج بل نهى عنها. فاما القزويني لايعلم او انه مدلس.


التحليل الموضوعي
233 - الحديث الرابع : عن عمران بن حصين قال { أنزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله تعالى . ففعلناها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم ينزل قرآن يحرمها ، ولم ينه عنها حتى مات . قال رجل برأيه ما شاء } قال البخاري " يقال : إنه عمر " . ولمسلم { نزلت آية المتعة - يعني متعة الحج - وأمرنا بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم لم تنزل آية تنسخ آية متعة الحج ولم ينه عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى مات } ولهما بمعناه .


The part that says "ya3ni muta3 al hajj" is added to the matn by muslim as a commentary and not a part of the hadith.

For example if we look at bukhari's version it doesn't have this,this was muslim's commentary.

Here is another hadith from jabir ibn abdullah.

روى مسلم في صحيحه ج4 ص 131 بسنده أن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري قال : ( كنّا نستمتع بالقبضة من التمر والدقيق على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه ( وآله ) وسلم وأبي بكر حتى نهى عنه عمر في شأن عمرو بن حريث ) .

"we used to do mut3 with flour and dates during the time of the messenger (saw) ,and abu bakr,until uma3 banned it in the case of sh2n 3mar ibn hurayth".


Jabir ibn abdullah (ra) is clearly showing here that the messenger never banned it and they even did it through abu bakr's time until umar banned it.

Some more proofs that umar banned muta3 with his opinion

سنن الدارمي حديث رقم 347
حَدَّثَنَا بَهْزٌ قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ قَالَا حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِجَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ إِنَّ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ رَضِي اللَّهم عَنْهم يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَإِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا قَالَ فَقَالَ لِي عَلَى يَدِي جَرَى الْحَدِيثُ تَمَتَّعْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ عَفَّانُ وَمَعَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلَمَّا وَلِيَ عُمَرُ رَضِي اللَّهم عَنْهم خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ هُوَ الْقُرْآنُ وَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هُوَ الرَّسُولُ وَإِنَّهُمَا كَانَتَا مُتْعَتَانِ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِحْدَاهُمَا مُتْعَةُ الْحَجِّ وَالْأُخْرَى مُتْعَةُ النِّسَاءِ *

قال : تمتعنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ومع أبي بكر ، فلما ولي عمر خطب الناس فقال : إنهما كانتا متعتان على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وأنا أنهى عنهما وأعاقب عليهما : إحداهما متعة النساء ، ولا أقدر على رجل تزوج امراة إلى أجل الا غيبته بالحجارة ، والاخرى متعة الحج . السنن الكبرى 7 : 206 ، تفسير الرازي 10 : 52 - 53 ، الدر المنثور 2 : 487 . وانظر ايضا : صحيح البخاري - كتاب التفسيرح / 43 ، 137 ، صحيح مسلم - كتاب النكاح ح / 11 - 17 ، سنن الترمذي 3 : 185 ح / 822 - 824 ، مسند أحمد 1 : 52 ، المستدرك على الصحيحين 2 : 305 ، تفسير الطبري 5 : 9 ، كنز العمال 16 ح / 45715 45717 ، 45722 ، 45723 ، 45728 ، 45732 ، الدر المنثور 2 : 482 - 487 ، 3 : 140

سنن الدارمي حديث رقم 347
حَدَّثَنَا بَهْزٌ قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ قَالَا حَدَّثَنَا هَمَّامٌ حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لِجَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ إِنَّ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ رَضِي اللَّهم عَنْهم يَنْهَى عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَإِنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَأْمُرُ بِهَا قَالَ فَقَالَ لِي عَلَى يَدِي جَرَى الْحَدِيثُ تَمَتَّعْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ عَفَّانُ وَمَعَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلَمَّا وَلِيَ عُمَرُ رَضِي اللَّهم عَنْهم خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ هُوَ الْقُرْآنُ وَإِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هُوَ الرَّسُولُ وَإِنَّهُمَا كَانَتَا مُتْعَتَانِ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهم عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِحْدَاهُمَا مُتْعَةُ الْحَجِّ وَالْأُخْرَى مُتْعَةُ النِّسَاءِ *
سنن الدارمي

رقم الحديث1744
أَخْبَرَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو هِلَالٍ حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ عَنْ مُطَرِّفٍ قَالَ قَالَ عِمْرَانُ بْنُ حُصَيْنٍ إِنِّي مُحَدِّثُكَ بِحَدِيثٍ لَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يَنْفَعَكَ بِهِ بَعْدُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ يُسَلَّمُ عَلَيَّ وَإِنَّ ابْنَ زِيَادٍ أَمَرَنِي فَاكْتَوَيْتُ فَاحْتُبِسَ عَنِّي حَتَّى ذَهَبَ أَثَرُ الْمَكَاوِي وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الْمُتْعَةَ حَلَالٌ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ لَمْ يَنْهَ عَنْهَا نَبِيٌّ وَلَمْ يَنْزِلْ فِيهَا كِتَابٌ قَالَ رَجُلٌ بِرَأْيِهِ مَا بَدَا لَهُ *


At least we can agree that a verse of the Qur'an was sent down for muta3 an nikaa7,so where is the verse that abrogates it?

Multiple ahadith say that

1- Umar banned it.
2- Verse was revealed for it.
3- It was done during the time of abu bakr and abu bakr's daughter even did it.

[baytul-herz24]

Wait wait wait LOL! You said the Umayyads did Tahreem of Mut`ah and fabricated narrations saying that Mut`ah was forbidden!? Now you quote me a list of people who believed that Mut`ah was valid and the list contains Mu`awiyah ibn abi Suffiyan (ra)!? LOL!


Look at what you said you dummy:


Most of the people of the time allowed mut3,so obviously muwaiya can't say its haram smart one.

[mohamedeb]

When I read " sunnis in Lebanon who act like christians"

===>When I read this I turned sad because this was the naked truth!!! :(

[baytul-herz24]

Tripoly keeps bringing me ahad ahadith like he is actually going to convince someone,he is trying to argue against certain historical facts that not even his biggest scholars disagree with and also against the entire plethora of ahadith that suggest umar banned it.


Tell me something lol,you mean to tell me that asma bint abu bakr the daughter of abu bakr ,the greatest man after the prophets let his daughter do muta3 when it was banned ?????????


Answer my questions and stop running away.

[TripolySunni]

@Baytul-Habal

Are you stupid? you just repeated the same broken record that we refuted in previous posts so don't even think i'll bother going to previous pages and quoting its reply again.

Secondly you came back with the same argument we refuted about `Imran bin Hussayn, the Hadith is talking about the Mut`ah of Hajj, but you quoted that loser Qazwini and I feel bad for you.


You say it is included by Muslim as commentary right? well look at it in Sahih Muslim:

نزلت آية المتعة - يعني متعة الحج - وأمرنا بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم لم تنزل آية تنسخ آية متعة الحج ولم ينه عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى مات


The blue part might be included by Muslim or any of the narrators as explanation, (and they know what the Hadith is about since they narrated it), but the red part is actually a part of the Hadith, meaning it's not added by Muslim.

Bukhari included it in the chapter of "al-Hajj"

Muslim included it in the chapter "al-Hajj".

al-Nasa'i included it in "Manasik al-Hajj".

al-Darami included it in "al-Manasik".

al-Bayhaqi included it in his chapter "Man Ikhtara al-Tamattu` bil-`umrah ila al-Hajj".

and so on...

And the scholars know of many texts to this narration this is why they know its about Hajj not Women, and I can show you even other texts such as the authentic one from al-Bayhaqi and ibn Majah:

إنِّي أحدِّثُكَ حديثًا، لعلَّ اللَّهَ أن ينفعَكَ بِهِ بعدَ اليومِ، اعلَم أنَّ رسولَ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليْهِ وسلَّمَ قدِ اعتمَرَ طائفةٌ من أَهلِهِ في العشرِ من ذي الحجَّةِ، فلم ينْهَ عنْهُ رسولُ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليْهِ وسلَّم، ولم ينزِلْ نسخُهُ قالَ في ذلِكَ بعدُ رجلٌ برأيِهِ ما شاءَ، أن يقولَ

`Imran bin Husayn said to Mutraf: "I shall narrate to you a Hadith, I hope Allah shall benefit you through it from this day on. Know that a group from the family of the Prophet (SAWS) went on a `Umrah on the tenth of Thu-al-Hijjah and he (SAWS) did not forbid it, nor was it abrogated but then a man said with his opinion what he said."

and this is another even clearer text for this hadith so that even a bull like you may understand:

ألا أحدثك حديثاً لعل الله أن ينفعك به؟ إن رسول الله جمع بين حجة و عمرة، ثم لم ينه عنه، و لم ينزل قرآن يحرمه. و إنه قد كان يسلم علي، فلما اكتويت، انقطع عني. فلما تركت عاد إلي، يعني الملائكة


"...The messenger (SAWS) combined between Hajj and `Umrah, then didn't forbid it, nor was there a Qur'an forbidding it..."

This is why Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

الحديث إذا لم تجمع طرقه، لم تفهمه. والحديث يفسر بعضه بعضاً

"al-Hadith, if you do not collect all its routes then you shall not understand it. and the Hadith explains the Hadith."

and Yahya ibn Ma`een said:

لو لم نكتب الحديث من مئة وجه، ما وقعنا على الصواب

"If we did not write the Hadith in one hundred forms, we would not know the truth."

and abu Hatam al-Razi says:

«لو لم يُكتب الحديث من ستين وجهاً، ما عقلناه

"If the Hadith wasn't written in sixty ways, we would not understand it."


As for the narration of Asma' I'll get into it when I read about it and see its texts.

[baytul-herz24]

@Baytul-Habal

Are you stupid? you just repeated the same broken record that we refuted in previous posts so don't even think i'll bother going to previous pages and quoting its reply again.

Secondly you came back with the same argument we refuted about `Imran bin Hussayn, the Hadith is talking about the Mut`ah of Hajj, but you quoted that loser Qazwini and I feel bad for you.


You say it is included by Muslim as commentary right? well look at it in Sahih Muslim:

نزلت آية المتعة - يعني متعة الحج - وأمرنا بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم لم تنزل آية تنسخ آية متعة الحج ولم ينه عنها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى مات


The blue part might be included by Muslim or any of the narrators as explanation, (and they know what the Hadith is about since they narrated it), but the red part is actually a part of the Hadith, meaning it's not added by Muslim.

Bukhari included it in the chapter of "al-Hajj"

Muslim included it in the chapter "al-Hajj".

al-Nasa'i included it in "Manasik al-Hajj".

al-Darami included it in "al-Manasik".

al-Bayhaqi included it in his chapter "Man Ikhtara al-Tamattu` bil-`umrah ila al-Hajj".

and so on...

And the scholars know of many texts to this narration this is why they know its about Hajj not Women, and I can show you even other texts such as the authentic one from al-Bayhaqi and ibn Majah:

إنِّي أحدِّثُكَ حديثًا، لعلَّ اللَّهَ أن ينفعَكَ بِهِ بعدَ اليومِ، اعلَم أنَّ رسولَ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليْهِ وسلَّمَ قدِ اعتمَرَ طائفةٌ من أَهلِهِ في العشرِ من ذي الحجَّةِ، فلم ينْهَ عنْهُ رسولُ اللَّهِ صلَّى اللَّهُ عليْهِ وسلَّم، ولم ينزِلْ نسخُهُ قالَ في ذلِكَ بعدُ رجلٌ برأيِهِ ما شاءَ، أن يقولَ

`Imran bin Husayn said to Mutraf: "I shall narrate to you a Hadith, I hope Allah shall benefit you through it from this day on. Know that a group from the family of the Prophet (SAWS) went on a `Umrah on the tenth of Thu-al-Hijjah and he (SAWS) did not forbid it, nor was it abrogated but then a man said with his opinion what he said."

and this is another even clearer text for this hadith so that even a bull like you may understand:

ألا أحدثك حديثاً لعل الله أن ينفعك به؟ إن رسول الله جمع بين حجة و عمرة، ثم لم ينه عنه، و لم ينزل قرآن يحرمه. و إنه قد كان يسلم علي، فلما اكتويت، انقطع عني. فلما تركت عاد إلي، يعني الملائكة

This is why Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

الحديث إذا لم تجمع طرقه، لم تفهمه. والحديث يفسر بعضه بعضاً

"al-Hadith, if you do not collect all its routes then you shall not understand it. and the Hadith explains the Hadith."

and Yahya ibn Ma`een said:

لو لم نكتب الحديث من مئة وجه، ما وقعنا على الصواب

"If we did not write the Hadith in one hundred forms, we would not know the truth."

and abu Hatam al-Razi says:

«لو لم يُكتب الحديث من ستين وجهاً، ما عقلناه

"If the Hadith wasn't written in sixty ways, we would not understand it."


As for the narration of Asma' I'll get into it when I read about it and see its texts.

Are you stupid?


The part that adds "ya3ni muta3 al hajj" is shadh and contricted by the majority of variants of ahadith ,and some that are even stronger.

Take a look a sahih bukhari he doesn't have these added words.

Nice try though.

[TripolySunni]

Here is another hadith from jabir ibn abdullah.

روى مسلم في صحيحه ج4 ص 131 بسنده أن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري قال : ( كنّا نستمتع بالقبضة من التمر والدقيق على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه ( وآله ) وسلم وأبي بكر حتى نهى عنه عمر في شأن عمرو بن حريث ) .

"we used to do mut3 with flour and dates during the time of the messenger (saw) ,and abu bakr,until uma3 banned it in the case of sh2n 3mar ibn hurayth".


Jabir ibn abdullah (ra) is clearly showing here that the messenger never banned it and they even did it through abu bakr's time until umar banned it.

Nope, not a proof sorry.

It could simply be that the abrogation was not know by Jabir especially since Mut`ah is a matter done privately and not often talked about, then he heard the abrogation in `Umar's (ra) time and stopped this practice as his Caliph instructed him, nor did he oppose the ruling of `Umar (ra).

Also the narration of the companion who stated its prohibition until the day of judgement takes priority over the actions of Jabir (ra).

all in all, not a proof for anything.

[TripolySunni]

Are you stupid?


The part that adds "ya3ni muta3 al hajj" is shadh and contricted by the majority of variants of ahadith ,and some that are even stronger.

Take a look a sahih bukhari he doesn't have these added words.

Nice try though.

I really don't care what you believe, you're going to stick to your Zinah obviously but I just intend to show the people your ignorance which I did by the grace of Allah. My answer is solid.

ttyl.

[baytul-herz24]

Nope, not a proof sorry.

It could simply be that the abrogation was not know by Jabir especially since Mut`ah is a matter done privately and not often talked about, then he heard the abrogation in `Umar's (ra) time and stopped this practice as his Caliph instructed him, nor did he oppose the ruling of `Umar (ra).

Also the narration of the companion who stated its prohibition until the day of judgement takes priority over the actions of Jabir (ra).

all in all, not a proof for anything.

Lol you agree with who you want when you want and you disagree with what suits you,you pick and choose.

You have to look at the WHOLE ahadith body and historical proofs along with what the scholars of the time said.

[baytul-herz24]

I really don't care what you believe, you're going to stick to your Zinah obviously but I just intend to show the people your ignorance which I did by the grace of Allah. My answer is solid.

ttyl.


Fine np,thanks for the convo wasalam.

[TripolySunni]

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (ra)

Found a new solid narration, it adds the opinion of abu Dharr (ra):

لا تصلحُ المُتعتانِ إلا لنا خاصةً . يعني متعةَ النساء ِومتعةَ الحجِّ .

["The two Mut`ahs are not valid except for us especially. meaning the Mut`ah of women and the Mut`ah of Hajj."]

source: Sahih Muslim.

عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ ، قَالَ : إِنَّ مُتْعَةَ النِّسَاءِ كَانَتْ كَرَامَةً أَكْرَمَ اللَّهُ بِهَا أَصْحَابَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، وَكَانَتْ رُخْصَةً لَهُمْ دُونَ النَّاسِ

["The Mut`ah of women is a Karamah that Allah bestowed upon the companions of Muhammad (SAWS), and it was a Rukhsa for them without the rest of the people."]

source: Risalat Tahrim al-Mut`ah by abi al-Fath Nasr bin Ibrahim al-Maqdisi.

Comment: Meaning it was only allowed for the companions as a Rukhsa for three days then it was forbidden.

وأخرج البيهقي من حديث أبي ذر بإسناد حسن: إنما كانت المتعة لحربنا وخوفنا

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said: [And al-Bayhaqi made Takhreej from the Hadith of abu Dharr with a Hasan Isnad: "Mut`ah was only (allowed) because of our wars and (time of) fear."]

source: Fath-ul-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari.

[TripolySunni]

Most of the people of the time allowed mut3,so obviously muwaiya can't say its haram smart one.

Oh OH! REALLY!?

So you Rawafidh say that the Umayyads were so evil and so tyrannic that they oppressed everyone and held the entire nation hostage at the tip of the sword, and you say that they openly stole the Imamah and killed Ahlul-Bayt, so if they did something so BIG as to reject Imamah which is one of the most important pillars of Islam according to you deviants, would they really be afraid of rejecting a small minor fiqhi issue like Mut`ah!?

Secondly ya Jahil, `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) openly banned Mut`ah according to you lot, and he gave a sermon and said he will stone the one who does it, and no one did it after that according to Jabir (ra)... no one opposed him or criticized him for it, why the heck would Mu`awiyah (ra) then be too scared of banning Mut`ah!?

Or maybe Mu`awiyah (ra) was doing Taqiyyah according to you ya Rafidhi!?

Also I can get you statements from MAJOR Tabi`een such as al-Hassan al-Basri or ibn abu `Amrah al-Ansari saying it was forbidden so why would Mu`awiyah (ra) the "oppressive tyrant" be afraid?

[mohamedeb]

Fine np,thanks for the convo wasalam.

One simple question;


Do you enjoy taking the virginity of unknown girls who assume that a certain action is allowed while in reality it's not?!
Weird how most shias declare they want to marry a virgin girl yet expect Mut'a to be a part of Islam?!


CAN SOMEONE FIND THE CONTRADICTION IN MY LAST QUESTION?.... Without even having to look at hadieth I sense an irregularity.

[TripolySunni]

Asma' bint Abi Bakr (ra)

This is the analysis of the narration of Mut`ah attributed to Asma' (ra).

The narration discussed is this one:

دخلنا على أسماء رضي الله عنها فسألناها عن متعة النساء ، فقالت : فعلناها على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

[We entered upon Asma' (ra) and asked her about the Mut`ah of women, so she said: "We did it during the time of the messenger (SAWS)."]

The chain of narrators for this Hadith is:

روى شعبة ، عن مسلم القري ، عن أسماء

Shu`bah narrated, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (then he mentions it)...

Now four people have narrated this from Shu`bah and they differed in the text of the narration.

(1) abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi from Shu`bah:

A- Yusuf bin Habib, from abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (he mentions "Mut'ah of women")

B- Mahmoud bin Ghiylan, from abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (he mentions "Mut'ah of women")

sources: Musnad al-Tayalisi, Sunan al-Nasa'i, Mustakhraj abi Na`eem `ala Muslim.

C- `Amro bin `Ali al-Fallas, from abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (he only mentions "Mut'ah")

D- `Abdah bin `Abdullah al-Saffar, from abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (he only mentions "Mut'ah")

sources: Mu`jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir, Mustakhraj abi Na`eem `ala Muslim.

(2) `Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy, from Asma' (he only mentions "Mut'ah")

sources: Sahih Muslim, Mustakhraj abi Na`eem `ala Muslim.

(3) Ghandar, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy that he said: "I do not know whether it is the Mut`ah of women or the Mut`ah of Hajj."

source: Sahih Muslim.

(4) Ruh bin `Ubadah, from Shu`bah, from Muslim al-Qurriy: I asked ibn `Abbas about the Mut`ah of Hajj and he gave me a Rukhsa for it but ibn al-Zubayr used to prohibit it. so he said: This is the mother of ibn al-Zubayr and she narrates that the Prophet (SAWS) used to give a Rukhsa in it, soenter on her and ask her. He said: So we entered on her and she was a big blind woman, she told us: The Prophet (SAWS) gave a Rukhsa for it.

sources: Sahih Muslim, Mustakhraj abi Na`eem `ala Muslim, Mu`jam al-Tabarani al-Kabir, Musnad Ahmad.

Conclusions:

FIRST: The only narrator to mention "Mut`ah of women" in the Hadith is abu Dawoud al-Tayalisi. By doing this, al-Tayalisi differed with those who are much more numerous and reliable in Hadith, such as Ghandar, ibn Mahdi, and Ruh. It should be noted that the narration of the other three is given priority not only because they are are stronger in narrating and more numerous, but also because their narration from Shu`bah in specific is far more reliable.

SECOND: Those who narrated from al-Tayalisi also differed, a group said "Mut`ah of women" and another group only said "Mut`ah". What is more reliable is the narration of those who simply said "Mut`ah" for several reasons:

a- Those who narrated it with the Lafth "Mut`ah" are much more reliable, for example `Amro bin `Ali al-Fallas is from the strong Huffaz, and the sheikh of the authors of the six main books. As for `Abdah bin `Abdullah al-Saffar, Bukhari narrates from him, but the other two men who stated the Lafdh "Mut`ah of women" do not reach their level, this is clear because none of the authors of the six main books narrates from Yunis bin Habib.

b- The Lafth "Mut`ah" is that of the majority from Shu`bah so it gets precedence.

THIRD: The narration of Ruh bin `Ubadah has all the details of the story of how they went to ibn `Abbas (ra) and how he referred them to the mother of his opponent ibn al-Zubayr (ra) to strengthen his argument. This shows that this narration is better memorized and it is one of the factors of giving a narration precedence in case of contradiction.

FOURTH: Muslim bin Qurriy who is the main narrator from Asma' (ra) had doubts in the narration of Muhammad bin Ja`far Ghandar, from Shu`bah, that Muslim said: "I do not know whether it is the Mut`ah of women or the Mut`ah of Hajj." It is popularly known that Ghandar is from the strongest narrators from Shu`bah.

قال أحمد بن حنبل : قال غندر : لزمت شعبة عشرين سنة

Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: Ghandar said: "I stuck with Shu`bah for twenty years."

FIFTH: It is impossible that Asma' bint abu Bakr (ra) did the Mut`ah of women, because the Rukhsa that allowed the Muslims to practice Mut`ah of women was in al-Fath or in Khaybar then it was prohibited forever, and Asma' was not in the army of Ghazwat al-Fath, and she got married to al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam (ra) a long time before these events took place, and she did her immigration when she was pregnant with `Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (ra), and he was the first born in Islam. So it's impossible that she did Mut`ah while she was already married and al-Zubayr (ra) is famous for being extremely jealous.

Narrated Asma' bint Abu Bakr (ra): I conceived `Abdullah bin al-Zubayr at Makkah and went out (of Makkah) while I was about to give birth. I came to Madinah and encamped at Quba', and gave birth at Quba'. Then I brought the child to Allah's Apostle and placed it (on his lap). He asked for a date, chewed it, and put his saliva in the mouth of the child. So the first thing to enter its stomach was the saliva of Allah's Apostle. Then he did its Tahnik with a date, and invoked Allah to bless him. It was the first child born in the Islamic era, therefore they (Muslims) were very happy with its birth, for it had been said to them that the Jews had bewitched them, and so they would not produce any offspring.

source: Sahih al-Bukhari.

Narrated `A'ishah (ra): The first child who was born in the Islamic Land (i.e. Madinah) amongst the Emigrants, was `Abdullah bin al-Zubayr. They brought him to the Prophet (SAWS). The Prophet (SAWS) took a date, and after chewing it, put its juice in his mouth. So the first thing that went into the child's stomach, was the saliva of the Prophet (SAWS).

source: Sahih al-Bukhari.

SIXTH: This narration is no different than that of Jabir ibn `Abdullah (ra) in which he said that they did it in the time of the Prophet (SAWS), it doesn't say that it wasn't later forbidden as was reported by `Ali (ra) and `Umar (ra) and ibn Mas`oud (ra) and others...

al-Salamu` Aleykum,

[New_Muslim]

One simple question;


Do you enjoy taking the virginity of unknown girls who assume that a certain action is allowed while in reality it's not?!
Weird how most shias declare they want to marry a virgin girl yet expect Mut'a to be a part of Islam?!


CAN SOMEONE FIND THE CONTRADICTION IN MY LAST QUESTION?.... Without even having to look at hadieth I sense an irregularity.

I wonder if they believe Fatima did Mutah? Hmm.

Bro, you took the words right out of my mouth. This justifies how Shiaism promotes porn.

I think it's high time we started using their scriptures as our toilet paper, bro. What do you think?

[New_Muslim]

I also forgot to mention in my last post how you believe the Qu'ran is distorted and your rat-hiding Mehdi is going to return with the real one? Don't give me your pathetic excuses how that's false and fabricated. I know MANY of your scholars who have openly stated that. This goes against a promise that Allah made to safeguard it.

Shiaism screams Kuffarism, Shirkism and Munafiqim doctrines. The religion of the Iblees.

[New_Muslim]

Brother TripolySunni, can you post the Hadith if you know of it in connection with this post of mine?

"When the Shias see how the Prophet Mohammed (SAW) du'a came true how he wanted Abu Bakar (RA) to arise to his right and Omar (RA) on the Day of Judgement you'll be ejecting more regret than sperm you have done with all that excessive Mutah."

[Sultaan]

Lol you agree with who you want when you want and you disagree with what suits you,you pick and choose.

You have to look at the WHOLE ahadith body and historical proofs along with what the scholars of the time said.

Who are you kidding Rafidhi, Asma and her son also believed in the Iman of Abu Bakr, which is kufr according to your sect, so tell uswhat is awla, mut'ah which is a fiqhi matter or something which you consider is kufr, the tasdeeq of the Iman of those who you consider "Aj-Jibt wa-Taghut" and one of the "Two Idols" while you vile Lebanese Rafidhi favour the imams of kufr like the Nusayri Bashar and the Saleebi Michel Aoun over them, something which exposes the deranged hypocrisy of the Rafidha. Why are you Rafidha so hypocritical? Are Bashar and Michel Aoun better than Abu Bakr and Umar?

[Bilal7]

Wow, these Shias have seriously corrupted beliefs. They basically believe in everything that a kuffar would believe about our religion. I'm still doubtful about whether we should declare them as non-Muslims since they do believe in the testimony of faith.

[New_Muslim]

Wow, these Shias have seriously corrupted beliefs. They basically believe in everything that a kuffar would believe about our religion. I'm still doubtful about whether we should declare them as non-Muslims since they do believe in the testimony of faith.

If that is the case then how you have any doubt?

[Bilal7]

If that is the case then how you have any doubt?

You never know if they believe in the oneness of Allah or not.

[New_Muslim]

You never know if they believe in the oneness of Allah or not.

Say, what?

That isn't enough, they don't believe the finality of the last Prophet, they curse Sahaba, they prostrate to graves, they think visiting the grave of Hussain (RA) is more virtuous than performing Haj and the list goes on.

They're Kafir to the core.

[TripolySunni]

al-Imamah and the Fatahiyyah Shia.

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

The title is a bit vague as you can see, "al-Imamah and the Fatahiyyah Shia" so who are these Fatahiyyah and what is their purpose and position from the Imamah? to answer this let me copy a small part of "Firaq al-Shia" regarding the main Shia sects that popped up after al-Sadiq's death.

[The Shia after the death of Imam Abu Abdullah Ja'afar al-Sadiq (died 148 hijri):

The Shia of Imam Ja`far bin Muhammad split to various groups:

A group said: Ja`far bin Muhammad is alive he does not die until the one responsible for the affairs of the people appears, they said that he was al Mahdi and they narrated from him that he said: "If you see my head roll from atop a mountain then do not believe this for I am the ONE" and that he said to them: "If one comes to you saying that he stood by me in my illness then washed me then put a shroud(Kafan) over my body then do not believe him For I am your companion(Mahdi) the possessor of the sword." This team was called al-Nawoosiyah.

A group said that the Imam after Ja`far bin Muhammad is his son Ismael bin Ja`far, they denied the death of Isma`eel in the life of his father, they said: "His father did this just to confuse the enemies, he feared from them so he hid his son in occultation". They said that Isma`eel will not die until he rules the earth and the affairs of the people and that he is al Qa'em; because his father has pointed to him as the succeeding Imam and told them that he was their companion and the Imam can only say the truth and when his death came we knew that he was truthful and that he was al Qa'em and that he never died. This team is called the pure al-Isma`iliyah.

A group said that the Imam after al Sadiq was Muhammad bin Ismael bin Ja`far, they said: The matter (Of Imamah) was given to Isma`eel in the life of his father but when he died before his father al Sadiq made this affair with his son Muhammad bin Isma`eel and the right was his and it is impremissible for anyone else to claim it; because the Imamah cannot be transferred from one brother to the other after al Hassan and al Hussein and it must be in the progeny. His two brothers `Abdullah and Musa have no right to it just like Muhammad Ibn al Hanafiyah had no right in the time of `Ali Zain al `Abideen bin al Hussein. This team was called al-Mubarakiyah.

A group said: "The Imam after al Sadiq is Muhammad bin Ja`far" and they were called al-Sumtiyyah.

A group said: The Imamah after Ja`far was in his son `Abdullah ibn Ja`far who was known as "al-Aftah", this was because he was the eldest son after the death of al Sadiq and he used to always sit in the Majlis(Gatherings) of his father and because he claimed this matter as it was in the will of his father. This team was called al-Fatahiyyah.

The majority of the Sheikhs and scholars of jurisprudence of the Shia were of the opinion of this team and they never doubted that the Imamah was given to `Abdullah bin Ja`far until he died and never left a son to succeed him so the majority of the Fatahiyyah turned back from the belief that he was the Imam.

A group said that the Imamah belonged to Musa after his father and they denied the Imamah of `Abdullah and they found fault in him for sitting in the Majlis of his father and his claim of the Imamah...

As well as other teams and then these teams split into other teams as well.

Sources: look for details of each team in the book “Firaq al Shia” Pages 66-79 by Al Hassan bin Musa Abu Muhammad al Nawbakhti, also in the books al Fusoul al Mukhtarah Pages 247-253 by Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al Nu'uman known as al Mufid, Bihar al Anwar 47/258 by Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi.]

Now if I were to comment on the bold red part, that the MAJORITY of the Shia, and we're not only talking about the laymen and the ignorant people, but we are talking about the MAJORITY of their scholars and Faqihs as well, and the majority of those who believed in the Imamah of his father Ja`far al-Sadiq, instead of believing in the Imamah of Musa al-Kazim they went and believed in the Imamah of another Imam and never realized that he was the wrong Imam UNTIL AFTER HE DIED!

I ask is this even possible? what were the infallible Imams doing? how could they let this happen and allow most of their followers to believe in a fake Imam? Ja`far al-Sadiq during his entire life never mentioned that the Imam after him was his son Musa? is this what the shia are trying to tell us?

There are several teams as you can see, but we're going to talk about the Fatahiyyah in this topic...

Now some of these Shia kept on believing in the Imamah of `Abdullah even after he died, and when he died they chose Musa as their next Imam and they didn't really believe in the Shia invented rule that says "No two brothers can be Imams after al-Hassan and al-Hussein."

From the Shia narrators who belong to this "deviant" Shia Fatahi sect, `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, let's see what the Shia scholars's opinions regarding this man are.


قال النجاشي: (علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضّال بن عمر بن أيمن مولى عكرمة بنربعي الفيّاض أبو الحسن، كان فقيه أصحابنا بالكوفة، ووجههم، وثقتهم، وعارفهمبالحديث، والمسموع قوله فيه. سمع منه شيئاً كثيراً، ولم يعثر له على زلّة فيهولا ما يشينه، وقلّ ما روى عن ضعيف، وكان فطحياً


[al-Najashi says: `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal bin `Umar bin Ayman the Mawla of `Ikrimah bin Ruba`i al-Fayyad abu al-Hassan, He was the Faqih of our companions in al-Kufa, and the best of them, and the most reliable of them, the most knowledgeable among them in Hadith, and the one whose voice is heard when it comes to it(Hadith). He has heard a lot of it(Hadith). We found no shameful mistakes by him (in Hadith), and he rarely ever narrates from the weak, and he was a Fatahi.]

Have you noticed the great rank of this man and his respect and knowledge in the Ahadith of Ahlul-Bayt? according to al-Najashi this man was the best among the companions in Kufa... well guess what, he died as a Fatahi believing in the Imamah of `Abdullah bin Ja`far.

And when the Najashi says "our companions" he means the Shia scholars and companions of the Imams.

We ask where were these "Mutawatir" Shia narrations about the 12 Imams in the time of ibn Faddal? how can such a man believe that `Abdullah bin Ja`far is the divinely appointed Imam without doubt?

Let's keep reading about this renowned scholar:


وقد صنّف كتباً كثيرة، منها: ما وقع إلينا: كتابالوضوء، كتاب الحيض والنفاس، كتاب الصلاة، كتاب الزكاة والخمس، كتاب الصيام،كتاب مناسك الحجّ، كتاب الطلاق، كتاب النكاح، كتاب المعرفة، كتاب التنزيل منالقرآن والتحريف، كتاب الزهد، كتاب الانبياء، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب الجنائز، كتابالوصايا، كتاب الفرائض، كتاب المتعة، كتاب الغيبة، كتاب الكوفة، كتاب الملاحم،كتاب المواعظ، كتاب البشارات، كتاب الطبّ، كتاب إثبات إمامة عبداللّه


[And he has authored many books: from those that have reached us: Kitab al-Wudhu, Kitab al-Haydh wal-Nifas, Kitab al-Salat, Kitab al-Zakat ....(until he reaches)... Kitab Ithbat Imamat `Abdullah...]

So the man had many books and some of them have even reached al-Najashi as you can see and what is interesting the last book in the quote and it is called "Ithbat Imamat `Abdullah" which means "The book of proving the Imamah of `Abdullah"! Yes, their renowned "trustworthy" scholar who is "The most knowledgeable in Ahadith" wrote an entire book which according to him proves that `Abdullah al-Aftah bin Ja`far was without a doubt an Imam appointed by Allah (swt)!

That was in Rijal al-Najashi pg.257-258.

al-Khoei reported in his Tarjamah #8019 that al-Kishshi said regarding this ibn Faddal that:


وقال الكشّي (397): (قال أبو عمرو: سألت أبا النضر محمد بن مسعود عن جميعهؤلاء، قال: أمّا علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضّال، فما رأيت في من لقيت بالعراقوناحية خراسان أفقه ولا أفضل من علي بن الحسن بالكوفة، ولم يكن كتاب عن الائمةعليهم السلام من كلّ صنف إلاّ وقد كان عنده، وقد كان أحفظ الناس، غير أنه كانفطحياً، يقول: بعبداللّه بن جعفر! ثم بأبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام، وكان منالثقات).

[al-Kishshi said (397) : abu `Amro said: I asked abu al-Nadr Muhammad bin Mas`oud about all of them so he said: As or `Ali bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, I have not seen in al-`Iraq and Khurasan anyone who is more of a Faqih than he is or anyone who was better than him. There was no book of any kind about the Imams (as) that he did not own, and he was the best Hafiz(of Hadiths) among the people, but he was a Fatahi .... And he was a Thiqah(Trustworthy).]

This man who believes in 13 Imams is described as the greatest of the Fuqaha(Jurists) of his time! He believed that `Abdullah was superior and more worthy than Musa al-Kazim yet he is a trustworthy and reliable man but when Ahlul-Sunnah say that Abu Bakr (ra) is superior and more worthy than `Ali (ra) suddenly we become Murtadds and Kouffar deserving to abide in hell-fire forever!

This is because Shiism is nothing more than a tool to destroy Islam, and corrupt the Truth, not only is this man of such great rank but also al-Khoei relies on the Tawtheeqat of ibn Faddal, meaning if ibn Faddal considers a man reliable then al-Khoei will also consider him reliable.


ولهذا نعتمد على توثيقات أمثال ابن عقدة وابن فضال وأمثالهما.

[And for this, we rely upon the Tawtheeqat of ibn `Uqdah and ibn Faddal and their likes.]

I want to say that ibn `Uqdah is a Zaidi who only believes in the first five Imams until Zaid bin `Ali bin al-Hussein.

So his Tawtheeqat are relied upon although he believed in 13 Imams, and according to the Shia the one who adds an Imam is the same as the one who subtracts an Imam so keep this in mind.

Imagine if Bukhari believed in a divinely appointed Prophet after Muhammad (SAWS), would he be a "reliable great trustworthy scholar" in the eyes of the Muslims? I don't think so. This is just the failed religion of the Shia.

Another example of these Fatahiyyah Shia is the Fatahi `Abdullah bin Bukayr bin A`yun, let's see what al-Tusi says about this man in al-Fehrest 173-174:


عبداللّه بن بكير: فطحي المذهب، إلاّ أنه ثقة

[`Abdullah bin Bukayr: His Madhab is Fatahi but he is Thiqah...]


al-Khoei in his Mu`jam al-Rijal #6745 reports what al-Mufid said about this man:


عدّه المفيد في رسالته العددية من الفقهاء الاعلام، والرؤساء المأخوذ عنهمالحلال والحرام والفتيا والاحكام، الذين لا يطعن عليهم ولا طريق إلى ذمّ واحد منهم.

[al-Mufid in his "al-Resalah al-`Adadiyah" considered him from the scholars and jurists, and the leaders that the matters of Halal and Haram should be taken from them, and the Fatwas(verdicts) and Ahkam(rulings) should be taken from them, and that his likes must not be attacked nor should anyone criticize them.]

This is the great scholar who believes in what? he believes in 13 Imams, he has added an Imam from his own pocket and then he is considered from the LEADERS and matters of Halal and Haram should be taken from him and the religious rulings and verdicts should be taken from them... whereas the Companions of Rassul-Allah (SAWS) who have been praised directly by Allah and his prophet are Murtadds and hypocrites and un-reliable... simply because they placed Abu Bakr (ra) before `Ali (ra), but as for ibn Bukayr if he placed `Abdullah before Musa then he is a LEADER and there is NO WAY to criticize him or find faults in him.

Then he reports from al-Kashshi:


قال محمد بن مسعود: عبداللّه بن بكير وجماعة من الفطحية هم فقهاء أصحابنا،منهم: ابن فضّال : يعني الحسن بن على : وع‏ؤمّار الساباطى، وعلي بن أسباط، وبنوالحسن بن علي بن فضّال علي وأخواه، ويونس بن يعقوب، ومعاوية ابن حكيم، وعدّعدّة من أجلّه الفقهاء العلماء


[Muhammad bin Mas`oud said: `Abdullah bin Bukayr and a group from the Fatahiyyah are the Jurists of our companions, from them: Ibn Faddal: meaning al-Hassan bin `Ali, and `Ammar al-Sabati, and `Ali bin Asbat, and the children of al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal `Ali and his two brothers, and Yunis bin Ya`qoub, and Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem. and he counted a couple of the most dignified Scholars and Jurists]


See that? they are the Jurists of their companions, yet they don't even know who the Imams are!? They don't know who their Imam is so they go to a random person and appoint him as an Imam.

Listen now to what this great "leader" did according to al-Khoei:


وأمّا ماذكره الشيخ في الاستبصار فلا ينافي الحكم بوثاقته، غايته أنّ الشيخ احتمل كذب عبداللّه بن بكير في هذه الرواية بخصوصها نصرة لرأيه، ومن المعلومأنّ احتمال الكذب لخصوصية في مورد خاص لا ينافي وثاقة الراوي في نفسه.


[As for what was mentioned by al-Sheikh(Tusi) in al-Istibsar, it does not deny his reliability, the entire matter is that the Sheikh placed the possibility that `Abdullah bin Bukayr lied in that narration in order to support his belief, and it is known that the possibility of lying in a specific location does not conflict with the trustworthiness of the narrator.]

Is this man serious!!? lying to support his beliefs does not harm his reliability!!?

And in al-Istibsar vol.3 pg.276 al-Tusi says:


يجوز أن يكون أسند ذلك إلى زرارة نصرة لمذهبه الذي أفتى به وأنه لما رأى أن أصحابه لا يقبلون ما يقوله برأيه أسنده إلى من رواه عن أبي جعفر ع وليس عبد الله بن بكير معصوما لا يجوز هذا عليه بل وقع منه من العدول عن اعتقاد مذهب الحق إلى اعتقاد مذهب الفطحية


[It is possible that he(ibn Bukayr) attributed the narration with its Isnad to Zurarah in order to support his Madhab and Fatwa, so when he saw that his companions did not accept his opinion then he attributed it to someone who narrated it from abu Ja`far (as), and `Abdullah bin Bukayr is not infallible, we have seen him clearly rejecting the truthful Madhab and becoming from the Madhab of the Fatahiyyah]

So he's not infallible but IS HE TRUSTWORTHY!? When he is clearly caught lying!?

Not only this, but the Shia consider ibn Bukayr from "Ashab al-Ijma`" or "The people of the consensus" because there is consensus among the Shia regrading their great rank and they are eighteen Muhaddith(Scholars of Hadith) and Shia scholars who had direct contacts with Shia Imams and great knowledge in religion.


أنك قد عرفت توثيق عبداللّه بن بكير من الشيخ، والمفيد، وعلي ابن إبراهيم، وعدّ الكشّي إيّاه من أصحاب الاجماع، فلا ينبغي الاشكال في وثاقته وإنكان فطحياً.

[You now know the authentication of `Abdullah ibn Bukayr by al-Sheikh and al-Mufid and `Ali bin Ibrahim and al-Kashshi counted him among Ashab al-Ijma`, so there should be no problems with regard to his reliability even if he was a Fatahi.]


This is the failed religion of the Shia, these are one-eyed hypocrites, who have nothing better to do than attack Islam, they see things with one eye only, they take what they like and adopt it as their religion and reject what they detest even if it is as clear as day-light. If they don't like a person, even if this person is praised in the Quran by Allah the almighty and praised on numerous occasions by the Prophet (SAWS) and he has gathered all the virtues and done many great deeds that served Islam, if they don't like him he automatically becomes a Kafir and a Murtadd, Whereas if they like a man and he has corrupt and deviant beliefs and he is a filthy liar, then he is considered from the dignified jurists and remarkable scholars.

The man from the people of consensus doesn't know who the Imam is, great.

Let's take another example of a Fatahi Shia, Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem, al-Najashi says about him:


معاوية بن حكيم بن معاوية بن ع‏ؤمّار الدهنى: ثقة، جليل، في أصحاب الرضا عليه السلام. قال أبو عبداللّه الحسين بن عبيداللّه: سمعت شيوخنا يقولون: روى معاوية بن حكيم أربعة وعشرين أصلاً لم يرو غيرها.

[Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem bin Mu`awiyah bin `Ammar al-Duhani: Thiqah, venerable, from the companions of al-Reda (as), abu `Abdullah al-Hussein bin `Ubeidullah: I heard our scholars saying: Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem narrated twenty four from Usool only.]

Notice that this Fatahi has narrated 24 Usool from the main Shia 400 Usool!!! and these Usool are basically 400 books of Hadiths written by the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Baqir, and this deviant Fatahi has narrated 24 from them so be aware of his great rank in their eyes.

al-Kishshi says about him in volume two of his book:


1061 - كان علي بن أسباط فطحيا، ولعلي بن مهزيار إليه رسالة في النقض
عليه مقدار جزء صغير، قالوا: فلم ينجع ذلك فيه ومات على مذهبه،
في محمد بن الوليد الخزاز ومعاوية بن حكيم
ومصدق بن صدقة ومحمد بن سالم بن عبد الحميد
1062 - قال أبو عمرو: هؤلاء كلهم فطحية، وهم من أجلة العلماء والفقهاء
والعدول، وبعضهم أدرك الرضا عليه السلام، وكلهم كوفيون.

['Ali bin Asbat was a Fatahi, and 'Ali bin Mehzayar sent him a short letter to refute him, they said: But it did not work and he died on his Madhab.
Regarding Muhammad bin al-Walid al-Khazzaz and Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem and Masdaq bin Sadaqah and Muhammad bin Salim `Abdul-Hameed,
abu `Amro said: All of them are Fatahiyyah, and they are the most dignified of jurists and scholars and reliable men, some of them were with al-Reda (as) and all of them were kufans.]


What a tragedy that their greatest and most dignified reliable knowledgeable scholars didn't believe in the 12 Imams! Now one might say that they met `Abdullah al-Aftah and they were impressed with his knowledge so they were tricked into becoming Fatahi, but this is the true tragedy now, read the following from Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith #12471:


وأمّا مااحتمله بعضهم من حمل كلام الكشّي على أنه كان فطحياً أوّلاً، ثمّ رجع عن ذلك بعد موت عبداللّه بن أفطح، فهو عجيب،ن فإنّ معاوية بن حكيم لم يدرك زمان عبداللّه الافطح جزماًعلى أنه خلاف ظاهر عبارة الكشّي من أنّ معاوية بن حكيم فطحي على الاطلاق.

[As for what some had placed as a possibility after they interpreted the words of al-Kishshi that he was a Fatahi at first and then abandoned it after the death of `Abdullah bin Ja`far, this is a very strange interpretation, because Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem for sure did not live in the time of `Abdullah al-Aftah, and it opposes the apparent wording of al-Kishshi that describes him as a Fatahi in the absolute sense.]

Which shows that these beliefs were so wide-spread among even their biggest scholars after the death of al-Aftah and they had proofs and arguments to prove his divine Imamah, and the tragedy is that many of these men were companions of al-Reda, al-Jawad and al-Hadi and the Imams never spoke a word to them concerning this matter nor did they clarify to them that they believed in a fake Imam!!!

So these disbelievers in Imamah had such a great rank, that Muhammad bin Ya`qoub al-Kulayni would even take the opinion of Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem in his book al-Kafi, in volume 6 of al-Kafi, The book of Divorce, under the chapter of "The divorce of the one who has has not reached puberty yet and the one who no longer has a menstrual period." at the tail of the fifth Hadith, al-Kulayni mentions:


وكان معاوية بن حكيم يقول: ليس عليهن عدّة.

[And Mu`awiyah bin Hakeem used to say: `Iddah is not required of them.]

Another example of a Fatahi Shia, `Ammar al-Sabati, al-Tusi says about this man in his Fehrest pg.189:


عمّار بن موسى الساباطى: وكان فطحياً، له كتاب كبير، جيّد، معتمد

[`Ammar bin Musa al-Sabati: And he was a Fatahi, he has a big, good, relied upon Book.]

May Allah destroy you! This is a deviant Fatahi and you're saying that he has a big, good, relied upon Book! and `Uthman ibn `Affan (ra) the collector of the Book of Allah (swt) one of the narrators in the chain of the Quran, is criticized and attacked!? and doubts had been cast by the Shia on his collection of the Quran!?

His great rank in their eyes was clarified in the previous Tarajim of the other Fatahi narrators above, and that he was considered a leader and matters of Halal and Haram are to be taken from him and so on...

In Mu`jam al-Rijal #8660, we read that he was from the companions of al-Sadiq.

Then you have Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati, al-Jawahiri says about him:


1160 - 1159 - 1165 - إسحاق بن عمار الساباطي: فطحي - ثقة - له أصل معتمد - طريق الشيخ والصدوق اليه صحيح

[Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati: Fatahi - Thiqah - Author of a relied upon Asl - Tariq of the sheikh(Tusi) and al-Saduq to him is Sahih]


al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest pg.54:


1 - إسحاق بن عمار الساباطي، له أصل، وكان فطحيا الا انه ثقة، واصله معتمد عليه

[Ishaq bin `Ammar al-Sabati, he has an Asl, and he was a Fatahi but he is Thiqah, and his Asl is relied upon.]

There you go, this guy not just narrated Usool but he himself is the author of an Asl from these Usool, a Fatahi is writing their Usool now.

There is also Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Faddal, al-Jawahiri said:


494 - 494 - 497 - أحمد بن الحسن بن علي بن محمد بن فضال: من أصحاب الهادي والعسكري (ع) فطحي - ثقة - روى في كامل الزيارات - له كتب


[Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Faddal: from the companions of al-Hadi and al-`Askari (as), Fatahi - Thiqah - narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat - he has a book]

These are some examples and there are many others, so in conclusion we ask the Shia, were did your "Mutawatir" narrations go? where are the narrations that declare who the Imams are? forget about the narrations, WHERE ARE YOUR IMAMS??? why didn't they clarify the texts and guide their close companions!? did they tell them that the Imamah of al-Aftah was incorrect? and if they did tell them then why did those "great scholars and jurists" not accept this and remain on the Madhab of the Fatahiyyah? are they stubborn!? And if these Imams did not clarify to their companions that the Imamah of al-Aftah was incorrect as is apparent, then of what use are these Taqqiyah practicing Imams!? what use are they if they did not clarify this great matter!?

wal-Salamu `Aleykum,

[TripolySunni]

al-Imamah and the Waqifah Shia.


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

This will be a brief discussion or "rant" about the Shia Waqifiyyah sect, just like we previously discussed the Fatahiyyah sect and their problems with Musa bin Ja`far, so let's see what happened to Musa bin Ja`far's companions...

Firaq al-Shia by al-Nawbakhti, we read on page 86:

[Then a group of those who took Musa bin Ja`far as their Imam did not differ about him, so they held on to his Imamah until he went to jail for the second time, then they differed on him and doubted his Imamah when he went to jail the second time, until he died in the jail of al-Rasheed so they became five sects.]


This is too funny! What religion is this!?

Subhan-Allah! how they are deluded, at one point he's their Imam, and they have no doubt about his Imamah, then he goes to jail and they all doubt his Imamah and leave him and form various sects... WHERE ARE THE DIVINE SHIA TEXTS AND HADITH!? What kind of religion is this!? Chaos! Confusion! During the time of the Imams they didn't know who their Imams are! Can you Imagine!?

Let's read a little about some of these Shia sects from the following sources: Firaq al Shia pages 79-85, al Fusoul al Mukhtarah page 254 and after it.:

[A group said that he passed away in the prison of al Sindhi bin Hashik, and that Yahya bin Khaled al-Barmaki has poisoned him with some dates and grapes he sent him and that the Imam after him is `Ali al Reda. This team is called al Qat`iyah because they passed his death to the Imamah of al Reda.
A group said that Musa al Kathim did not die and that he is alive and will never die until he rules the east of this earth and its west and fills it with justice like it was filled with oppression and that he is al Qa’em al Mahdi]

Where are the texts that state that the number of Imams is Twelve!? The companions of Musa bin Ja`far differ and form five different sects! Has the Imam not said anything? what is apparent from these narrations is that the companions of the Imams not only did they not know who the Imams were, but they never even knew their number, all this nonsense about "twelve infallibles" the Shia of those days didn't even know these.

And why wouldn't he die? is he some kind of Jinn? They made Takfeer on the nation because we do not believe in their Imams while they never knew their OWN Imams. They think Musa will come back and rule the east and the west and fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression ALL OF IT DREAMS! Illusions! their `Aqeedah is an Illusion!

Their seventh Imam never dies, and he is al-Qa'em al-Mahdi, WHAT A FAILURE THIS RELIGION IS.

Let's continue reading:

[he is alive and will never die until he rules the east of this earth and its west and fills it with justice just as it was filled with oppression and that he is al Qa’em al Mahdi,
they claimed that he left the prison and no one saw him on that day neither did they know about him, they said that the Sultan and his comrades only claimed his
death as a diversion and they lied to the people]

Which reminds me of the story of the Twelver Shia in our days, because everyone knew that the 11th Imam never had a son, nor did anyone report that his wife was even pregnant, so what did the Twelver Shia do? they invented narrations saying that the Imams are not born like average humans, they are born from the thighs of their mothers since they are pure, and they are born in one day not in nine months like average children, and that when he was born he grew up in one day like an average human would grow up in one month, then he left his house and ran away and no one saw him and he is still alive until this day and he shall appear and fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression... the same scenario we see it here, by the same lying Shia.

But do you know something? I'd rather believe the story of these Shia who believed that Musa was the Mahdi rather than believe the story of the Twelver Shia of our days, at least those Shia can prove that Musa bin Ja`far exists, and their story is much less ridiculous try comparing the two and see for yourself.

we continue...

[they said he was occluded(Ghaybah) from the people and he disappeared AND THEY NARRATED NARRATIONS ABOUT THIS
FROM HIS FATHER al-Sadiq, that he said: “He(Musa) is al Qa’em al Mahdi and if his head fell down from atop a mountain do not believe this as he is al Qa’em.]

Subhan-Allah! they claimed occultation or Ghaybah for their seventh Imam! now you know where the stupid idea of "Ghaybah" came from, these ridiculous beliefs have been around since the year 183 hijri, who knows maybe even before it because they claimed Mahdawiyyah for many people not just Musa bin Ja`far.

Not only that, these people were all living in Kufa and were all narrating narrations from the infallible Imams to support their beliefs, especially Ja`far al-Sadiq who lived in Madinah among Ahlul-Sunnah. Of course you won't find many of these narrations today, only bits and scraps since certain other Shia sects never agreed with them.

we continue...

[Some of those said: He is al Qa’em and he died, The Imamah is for no one other than him until his return then they claimed that he returned after his death but he
has disappeared and is in occultation in some land and he is alive and that his companions(emissaries) meet up with him and see him, they used narrations from his father to prove this
such as: “Al Qa’em is called a Qa’em because he makes Qiyam after he dies” (Qiyam meaning he rises after his death).]

Forget about the names of the twelve Imams, where the heck are the narrations about the number of Imams!? it is extremely obvious that the Shia had no idea that the number was even supposed to be Twelve!
More importantly look at the silly Shia stories, the same thing over and over, they claimed that the man is alive, he is the Mahdi, he has disappeared in some location, and only his close companions and "emissaries" can meet up with him, WAKE UP YA SHIA!

more...

[Others amongst them said: he has died and he is al Qa’em and he is like the prophet of Allah `Isa bin Mariam (as), He will not return until his time when
he shall fill the earth with justice as it was filled with oppression, they claimed that Allah said: “He has a likeness to `Isa bin Mariam and he will die by the hands of the children
of bani al-Abbas” and he did die.]

Allahu Akbar! It's as if you're debating a Shia online, the same exact lame arguments and the same back-wards retarded logic as their ancestors, you ask them: "How is it that he is still alive for all this time?" they respond: "Isn't prophet `Isa still alive." May Allah destroy the deviants and wipe out the deviance!

more...

[Some of them denied his death saying: “He died and Allah raised him to himself and he shall return him in the time of his Qiyam”. All of these teams were called
al-Waqifah because they made Wuquf(meaning they stopped) at Musa bin Ja’afar and claimed that he was the Mahdi, they never took an Imam after him and never passed from his
Imamah to the others after him, some of those who had claimed that he was alive said: “al-Reda and those who raised after him are not Imams but they are Caliphs one after
the other until the time when He(Musa) shall rise again.”]

And these my friends are the Waqifi Shia, and these guys unlike their Fatahi Shia brothers did not add extra Imams, instead they subtracted Imams and denied the Imamah of almost half of the standard twelver Shia Imams.

more...

[And the Waqifah were given a name by some of their opponents who believed in the Imamah of `Ali bin Musa, they called them al-Mamtourah, and this name became famous and
they were known by it, this is because `Ali bin Isma`eel al-Maythami and Yunis bin `Abdul-Rahman debated each-other, and when the discussion became heated ibn Isma`eel said to Yunis:
"You are nothing more than Mamtourah(wet) dogs!" .. He meant that they were filthier than rotten corpses, because if the dogs were exposed to rain they become filthier than a rotten corpse
(....ect...) and this title was exclusive to the companions of Musa bin Ja`far.]


So the Shia were debating each-other, the companions of al-Reda VS the companions of al-Kazim, and it seems that the Waqifah had some really strong arguments and it angered the companions of al-Reda so they started to illustrate those "Akhlaq of Ahlul-Bayt" and he called him a wet dog. of course they had to debate, they couldn't just all go to `Ali bin Musa and ask him "Are you the Imam?" and then he'd perform a miracle or answer 30,000 questions in one sitting in order to prove that he was an infallible divinely appointed Imam.

Now check out this group here because they're amazing...

[A group said: We do not know whether he is alive or dead because we narrated a lot of narrations that state that he was al Qa’em al Mahdi and it is impermissible to say they were lies, we have also received the news of the death of his father and grandfathers before him and it is also impermissible to reject these famous clear narrations, death is truth and Allah does what he wills so we stopped from rejecting his death and confirming his life]

This is a Religion!? Seriously, is this a Religion!? What kind of belief is this!? Imagine if the Muslims went to the Kouffar of Quraysh and told them "We have received guidance ad revelation from the prophet of God." and the Kouffar would say: "Where is your Prophet?" The Muslims will say: "Well... we don't know, we're not sure if he's alive or dead."

By Allah, is this a religion!? and notice what they said "We narrated a lot of narrations that state that he was al Qa’em al-Mahdi" so I want to address a question to al-Kulayni the author of al-Kafi, I ask: Where are those narrations you filthy pig!!? Where are the narrations you lying Zindeeq!!?

I want the Shia to read this and I want the Shia to know, that these people, these Shia sects, they ALL had plenty of narrations which they claimed that they received from the infallible Imams just like you do.

Let's see what they decided to do...

[They said: we are still following his(Musa's) Imamah and we will not accept another Imam until we verify the truthfulness of what he claims - they mean `Ali bin Musa al Reda – If we find
truth in his Imamah like the Imamah of his father before him with the proofs and the signs of the Imam in which he confirms it for himself and confirms his father’s death and
Not from news and narrations coming from those who claim to be his companions, then we will submit to him and believe him.]

Did you read? "And NOT from the news and narrations of those who claim to be his companions", I SWEAR TO GOD That the Shia knew they were liars, they knew that all those claiming to be the "companions" of this Imam or that Imam are a bunch of un-trustworthy liars who would fabricate narrations to support their opinions and corrupt beliefs. This is why they would only accept if they heard it from the Imam's mouth not from his companion's "narrations".

So we will stop here, and there are other groups that emerged but I don't want to waste any more time, we will just stick to the Waqifiyyah and talk about them briefly after we learned about their origins and beliefs.

Ibrahim ibn `Abdul-Hameed, he is a Waqifi who believes in all the things we listed above, what did they say about him?

al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest pg.40:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد ثقة، له أصل أخبرنا به أبو عبداللّه محمد بن محمد بن النعمان المفيد

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, Thiqah, he wrote an Asl, abu `Abdullah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Nu`man al-Mufid told us about it.]

al-Tusi says in his Rijal pg.332:

إبراهيم بن عبد الحميد واقفى

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, Waqifi.]


So this man, is a Waqifi, and he wrote one of their Shia 400 Usool, meaning they are relying in their most fundamental beliefs on an Asl written by a Waqifi. It is as if the Muslims would rely on a book of Hadith written by a Twelver Shia, this is how ridiculous it is.

We explained what these Usool are in a previous thread and we repeat: The Shia Usool are basically 400 books of Hadiths written by the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Baqir.

on pg.351 he says:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد من أصحاب أبي عبد اللّه عليه السلام، أدرك الرضا عليه السلام، ولم يسمع منه على قول سعد بن عبداللّه: واقفى، له كتاب

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed, from the companions of abu `Abdullah (as), also lived in the time of al-Reda (as) and did not hear from him, according to the saying of Sa`ad bin `Abdullah: Waqifi, he has a book.]

al-Najashi says:

إبراهيم بن عبدالحميد الاسدى، مولاهم، كوفي

[Ibrahim bin `Abdul-Hameed al-Asadi, Mawlahum, Kufi]

Means he is the Mawla and companion of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq, and he is from al-Kufa in `Iraq.

According to al-Tusi, he was from the trustworthy companions of al-Sadiq, he was such a big scholar that he wrote one of their main 400 fundamental Shia Usool, and he lived in the time of al-Reda but didn't hear narrations from him... and he was a Waqifi!

So we ask, how is it that such a great and knowledgeable, trustworthy companion of the Imams, doesn't know who the Imams are, or even their number? because the Waqifah obviously did not believe that the number of Imams was twelve. Was there no one in Kufa to tell this great figure that the infallible says that the number of Imams is twelve?

From the Waqifah is also Ishaq ibn Jarir, al-Najashi says:

إسحاق بن جرير بن يزيد بن جرير بن عبد الله البجلي، أبو يعقوب، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، ذكر ذلك أبو العباس.


[Ishaq bin Jarir bin Yazid bin Jarir bin `Abdullah al-Bajali, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as), abu al-`Abbas mentioned it.]


Tusi in his Fehrest p.54-55:

إسحاق بن جرير.
له أصل، أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد، عن ابن الوليد، عن الصفار، عن أحمد ابن محمد بن عيسى، عن الحسن بن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن جرير.


[Ishaq bin Jarir, wrote an Asl, we were told about it by ibn abi Jeed, from ibn al-Walid, from al-Saffar, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from al-Hassan bin Mahboub from Ishaq bin Jarir]

Tusi in his Rijal, pg.332:

24 - إسحاق بن جرير، واقفي.

[Ishaq bin Jarir, Waqifi.]

al-Khoei said in his Mu`jam al-Rijal in his Tarjamah, vol3 pg.200:

عدّه المفيد في رسالته العددية من الفقهاء الاعلام، والرؤساء المأخوذ عنهمالحلال والحرام والفتيا والاحكام، الذين لا يطعن عليهم ولا طريق إلى ذمّ واحد منهم.

[al-Mufid in his "al-Resalah al-`Adadiyah" considered him from the scholars and jurists, and from the leaders that the matters of Halal and Haram should be taken from them, and the Fatwas(verdicts) and Ahkam(rulings) should be taken from them, and that his likes must not be attacked nor should anyone criticize them.]

Imagine, a trustworthy companion of al-Sadiq, who narrates his Ahadith, and wrote one of the Usool, is a Waqifi and does not believe in the Imamah of `Ali al-Reda or his children including the 12th Mahdi, instead he believes in the 7th Mahdi.

Another Waqifi is abu `Abdullah ibn Thabit, al-Khoei said in his Mu`jam vol.22 pg.240:

14501: أبو عبداللّه بن ثابت: تقدّم في ترجمة حميد بن زياد أنه ثقة، ومن رجال الواقفة.

[abu `Abdullah bin Thabit: As stated previously in the Tarjamah of Humayd bin Ziyad that he is a Thiqah, from the men of the Waqifah.]

So let us return to the Tarjamah of Humayd bin Ziyad in al-Khoei's Mu`jam vol.7 pg.303:

قال أبو غالب الزرادي في رسالته إلى ولده ص 189: " وسمعت من حميد ابن زياد وأبي عبد الله ابن ثابت، وأحمد بن رماح وهؤلاء من رجال الواقفة، إلا أنهم كانوا فقهاء ثقات في حديثهم كثيري الدراية

[abu Ghalib al-Zurari said in his Resalah to his son, pg.189: "I heard(narrations) from Humayd ibn Ziyad and abu `Abdullah ibn Thabit, and Ahmad bin Ramah and they are from the men of the Waqifah, although they were reliable jurists in their narrations with vast understanding.]

As you've just seen these men have gathered two important qualities, the trustworthiness of their narrations, the second quality is their Dirayah or in other words the accurate understanding of religious texts, so notice how these men are being described, and then think about the fact that they lived and died with the Imams, narrated from the Imams, and never knew the Imams.

Why do the Shia scholars say "There is no way to criticize them?" why don't they quote their favorite narration about people going to hell if they never knew the Imam of their time?

Another one is Ahmad bin abi Bishr al-Sarraj, al-Najashi says in his Rijal:

أحمد بن أبي بشر السرّاج: كوفي، مولى، يكنّى أبا جعفر، ثقة في الحديث، واقف، روى عن موسى بن جعفر عليه السلام، وله كتاب نوادر

[Ahmad bin abi Bishr al-Sarraj: Kufi, Mawla, his Kuniyah is abu Ja`far, Thiqah in Hadith, Waqif, narrated from Musa bin Ja`far (as), and he has a book of Nawadir.]

Keep in mind we're not talking about dumb ignorant laypeople, these are great scholars of Usool and they supposedly laid the foundations of the entire Shia Madhab, they have narrated directly from the Imams and had a very good understanding of what they were talking about.

Another guy, Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin Isma`eel, al-Najashi says:

أحمد بن الحسن بن إسماعيل بن شعيب بن ميثم التمّار، مولى بني أسد. قال أبو عمرو الكشّي: كان واقفاً، وذكر هذا عن حمدويه، عن الحسن بن موسى الخشّاب، قال: أحمد بن الحسن واقف، وقد روى عن الرضا عليه السلام، وهو على كلّ حال ثقة، صحيح الحديث، معتمد عليه، له كتاب النوادر.

[Ahmad bin al-Hassan bin Isma`eel bin Shu`ayb bin Maytham al-Tammar, Mawla bani Asad. abu `Amro al-Kishshi said: He was a Waqifi, and he mentioned it from Hamdaweih, from al-Hassan bin Musa al-Khashshab, he said: He narrated from al-Reda (as), and he is a Thiqah eitherway, his Hadith is Sahih and relied upon, he has a book of Nawadir.]

al-Khoei said in his Tarjamah #489:

عدّه الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (30)، قائلاً: (أحمد ابن الحسن الميثمي، واقفى).

[al-Sheikh(Tusi) counted him among the companions of al-Kazim (as) he said: "Ahmad bin al-Hassan al-Maythami, Waqifi."]

Notice dear reader that the man is a Waqifi, he does not believe in the Imamah of al-Reda, yet he narrates Ahadith from al-Reda!

Also we mention Humayd ibn Ziyad, al-Najashi said:

حميد بن زياد بن حماد بن حماد بن زياد، هوارا الدهقان أبو القاسم، كوفي سكن سورا وانتقل إلى نينوى - قرية على العلقمي إلى جنب الحائر على صاحبه السلام - كان ثقة واقفا وجها فيهم، سمع الكتب وصنف كتاب الجامع في أنواع الشرائع، كتاب الخمس، كتاب الدعاء، كتاب الرجال، كتاب من روى عن الصادق عليه السلام، وكتاب الفرائض، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب ذم من خالف الحق وأهله، كتاب فضل العلم والعلماء، كتاب الثلاث والاربع، كتاب النوادر وهو كتاب كبير. أخبرنا أحمد بن علي بن نوح، قال: حدثنا الحسين بن علي بن سفيان، قال: قرأت على حميد بن زياد كتابه كتاب الدعاء، وأخبرنا الحسين بن عبيد الله، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن جعفر بن سفيان، عن حميد بكتبه. قال: قال أبو المفضل الشيباني: أجازنا سنة عشرة وثلاثمائة، وقال أبو الحسن علي بن حاتم: لقيته سنة ست وثلاثمائة، وسمعت منه كتابه الرجال قراءة وأجاز لنا كتبه، ومات حميد سنة عشر وثلاثمائة

[Humayd bin Ziyad bin Hamad bin Hamad bin Ziyad, Hawara al-Dahqan abu al-Qassem, from Kufah, he moved to (the village) Ninawa, he was a Thiqah, a Waqifi, from the best. He heard the books and wrote Kitab al-Jami` fi Anwa` al-Shara'i` (...until he says...) abu al-Hassan `Ali bin Hatim said: I met him in the year 306 hijri, and heard from him his book of Rijal which he read to us and gave us Ijazah to his books, and he died in the year 310 hijri]

I want the Shia to notice before the Muslims, these Shia groups and religions we're talking about, they aren't just small groups that appeared for two or three years then disappeared, this man was one of the major scholars of the Shia in his time and one of their greatest of all times, and he died when? he died in 310 after Hijrah! Musa al-Kazim had died around 180 after Hijra, and when was the time of occultation or Ghaybah of your supposedly 12th Imam? it was around 260 after Hijrah, so this Shia Waqifi scholar died during the time of Ghaybah of your "Mahdi" and he never believed that he existed nor did he believe that there was a 12th Imam!

al-Tusi says in his Rijal:

عالم جليل، واسع العلم كثير التصانيف

[Dignified scholar, with vast knowledge and lots of books]

Will the Shia readers PLEASE concentrate and think about what is being said in their books? if you check a-Tusi's Fehrest you will realize that this man narrated a lot of your Usool and books of Hadith, yet he still remains a Waqifi, WHY!? Did he not come across the narrations about the names of the Imams!? Did he not come across the narrations which mention the number of Imams!? surely if these narrations existed then they must have reached him.

This is from al-Fehrest:

حميد بن زياد، من أهل نينوى، قرية إلى جانب الحائر على ساكنه السلام، ثقة، كثير التصانيف، روى الأصول أكثرها، له كتب كثيرة على عدد كتب الأصول.


[Humayd ibn Ziyad, from the people of Ninawa, Thiqah, with lots of works, narrated most of the Usool, he has many books, as much as the number of Usool.]


Without a doubt the best Shia scholar of his time, he was aware of almost every single narration from the Imams as well as the men who narrated them since he had a book of Rijal, yet he never believed in the 12 Imams.

Another Waqifi, Idris ibn al-Fadl, al-Najashi says in his Rijal pg.103-104:

إدريس بن الفضل بن سليمان الخولاني أبو الفضل كوفي، واقف، ثقة، له كتاب الأدب،كتاب الطهارة، كتاب الصلاة.


[Idris bin al-Fadl bin Suleiman al-Khawalani abu al-Fadl al-Kufi, Waqif, Thiqah, he has a book of Adab, a book of Taharah, and a book of Salat.]


So this is another "wet dog" who is a Thiqah according to the Twelvers.

Now al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah, al-Tusi says in al-Fehrest:

33 - الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة الكوفي، واقفي المذهب، الا انه
جيد التصانيف، نقي الفقه، حسن الانتقاد. وله ثلاثون كتابا، منها: كتاب القبلة، كتاب الصلاة، كتاب الصيام، كتاب الشراء والبيع، كتاب الفرائض، كتاب النكاح، كتاب الطلاق، كتاب الحيض، كتاب وفاة أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، كتاب الطهور، كتاب السهو، كتاب المواقيت، كتاب الزهد، كتاب البشارات، كتاب الدلائل، كتاب العبادات، كتاب الغيبة.
ومات ابن سماعة سنة ثلاث وستين ومائتين في جمادي الأولى

[al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah al-Kufi, his Madhab is Waqifi, be he has good books, pure Fiqh, and good comments. he has thirty books, from them: Kitab al-Qiblah, Kitab al-Siyam, Kitab al-Salat, (...ect...) Book on the death of abi `Abdillah (as), book of Tuhour, book of Sahu, book of Mawaqit, book of Zuhd, book of Bisharat, book of Dala'el, book of `Ibadat, book of Ghaybah.
And ibn Sama`ah died in the year 263 after Hijrah, during the month of Jamadi al-Awwal.]

al-Najashi says in his Rijal pg.40-41:

الحسن بن محمد بن سماعة أبو محمد الكندي الصيرفي من شيوخ الواقفة كثير الحديث فقيه ثقة وكان يعاند في الوقف ويتعصب.


[al-Hassan bin Muhammad bin Sama`ah abu Muhammad al-Kindi al-Sayrafi, from the scholars of the Waqifah, narrates a lot of Hadith, a Faqih(jurtist), a Thiqah, and he used to be a stubborn extreme Waqifi.]

And you should read why they say that he was stubborn, it's written in al-Najashi and al-Khoei's Mu`jam, a very funny story about the 10th Shia Imam knowing the future and the time of death of some people, and then some guy informs ibn Sama`ah of this story so he denies that anyone could know such things thus they started saying he was a stubborn Waqifi... because he denied an un-Islamic story by some guy they branded him as an "extremist stubborn Waqifi."

Same story again, another renowned trustworthy Shia scholar, dies in the time of the Ghaybah of the 12th Imam and doesn't even believe in him, where are the narrations of the Imams? when the renowned jurists and Fuqaha' and Muhaddiths of the Shia, who transmitted the narrations of Ahlul-Bayt to the likes of Kulayni and Saduq, and lived in the time of the Imams never knew who the Imams were or their number?

Now al-Hanan ibn Sadeer, al-Jawahiri said in al-Mufid min Mu`jam Rijal a-Hadith:

4102 - 4101 - 4110 - حنان بن سدير: بن حكيم بن صهيب، أبو الفضل الصيرفي، واقفي - ثقة - من أصحاب الصادق، والكاظم (ع) - روى في كامل الزيارات - روى في تفسير القمي


[Hanan bin Sadeer: bin Hakeem bin Suhayb, abu al-Fadl al-Sayrafi, Waqifi - Thiqah - from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim (as) - narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat - narrated in Tafseer al-Qummi]


Trustworthy companion of two Imams, narrates their Ahadith, and doesn't know the names or number of Imams.

Dawood ibn Hosayn, al-Khoei talks about him in his Mu`jam #4391:


قال النجاشي: داود بن حصين الاسدى: مولاهم، كوفى، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد اللّه وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام

[al-Najashi said: Dawood ibn Hosayn al-Asadi: their Mawla, Kufi, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as)]


Then al-Khoei states what al-Tusi says in his regard:


وعدّه في رجاله مع توصيفه بالكوفي في أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام (14) وفي أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (5) قائلاً: واقفى.

[And he(Tusi) counted him in his Rijal as a Kufi from the companions of al-Sadiq (as) and al-Kazim (as), saying: Waqifi.]

Masha-Allah these companions of the Imams are receiving some major guidance it seems.

Zur`ah bin Muhammad, al-Khoei states the opinions of the scholars in his Tarjamah #4676:


قال النجاشي: زرعة بن محمد أبو محمد الحضرمى، ثقة، روى عن أبي عبد اللّه،وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، وكان صحب سماعة، وأكثر عنه ووقف.

[al-Najashi said: Zur`ah bin Muhammad abu Muhammad al-Hadrami, Thiqah, narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as), he accompanied Sama`ah and narrated a lot from him, and he made Wuquf]


Then al-Khoei reports the opinion of al-Tusi:


...وقال الشيخ (315): (زرعة بن محمد الحضرمى: واقفي المذهب، له أصل أخبرنا به عدّة من أصحابنا، عن محمد بن علي بن بابويه، عن أبيه
وكيف كان فقد عدّه الشيخ في رجاله من أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام (98) وفي أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام (2) قائلاً: واقفى.

[al-Sheikh(Tusi) said: Zur`ah bin Muhammad al-Hadrami: His Madhab is Waqifi, he wrote an Asl, We were told about it by some of our companions, from Muhammad bin `Ali bin Babaweih, from his father (ect...)
And eitherway, the Sheikh(Tusi) has counted him in his Rijal among the companions of al-Sadiq (as) and the companions of al-Kazim (as), saying: Waqifi.]

Another of the trustworthy companions of the Imams and a knowledgeable scholar of Shia Hadith who wrote one of their Usool is a Waqifi who doesn't know the names or numbers of Imams.

Ziyad bin Marwan al-Qandi, al-Jawahiri summarizes the opinion of al-Khoei in al-Mufid min al-Mu`jam:


4802 - 4801 - 4811 - زياد بن مروان: أبو الفضل - من أصحاب الصادق، والكاظم (ع) - روى عن أبي عبد الله وأبي الحسن (ع) وقف على
الرضا (ع) قاله النجاشي - من أركان الواقفة - له كتاب - خبيث جحد حق الرضا (ع) لكن مع ذلك هو ثقة - روى في كامل الزيارات - روى 13 رواية، منها عن أبي الحسن، وأبي إبراهيم (ع)

[Ziyad bin Marwan: abu al-Fadl - from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim (as) - narrated from abu `Abdillah and abu al-Hassan (as), made Wuquf on al-Reda (as) as stated by al-Najashi. He is from the pillars of the Waqifah - has a book - He is evil, he rejected the right of al-Reda (as) but nonetheless he remains a Thiqah - narrated in Kamil al-Ziyarat - 13 narrations from abu al-Hassan and abu Ibrahim (as)]


They say the man is EVIL and he outright rejected the divine right of al-Reda (as) but for some reason he is a Thiqah, WHY? go to his Tarjamah in Mu`jam Rijal al-Hadith of al-Khoei #4811 and you'll read:


وقول الحسن بن محبوب: أنه مات زنديقاً ولكنه مع ذلك ثقة لاجل أنّ كتابه من الاصول

[And the saying of al-Hassan bin Mahboub: He died as a Zindeeq but he remains a Thiqah because the book he wrote is from the Usool.]

Allahu Akbar! The Twelver Shia are taking the fundamentals of their religion and Hadith from an EVIL ZINDEEQ!!!

Now this next guy has the exact same beliefs, but for some reason he is not an Evil Zindeeq, `Abdul-Kareem bin `Amro al-Khath`ami, we read in his Tarjamah by al-Khoei #6629:


قال النجاشي: عبدالكريم بن عمرو بن صالح الخثعمى، مولاهم، كوفى، روى عن أبي عبداللّه وأبي الحسن عليهما السلام، ثم وقف على أبي الحسن عليه السلام! كان ثقة ثقة عيناً، يلقّب كرام.

[al-Najashi said: `Abdul-Kareem bin `Amro bin Saleh al-Khath`ami, their Mawla, Kufi, narrated from abu `Abdullah (as) and abu al-Hassan (as), then made Wuquf on abu al-Hassan (as)! He was a Thiqah Thiqah `Ayn, had the title of Karram.]

This guy is not an evil Zindeeq, instead he is extremely trustworthy and reliable described by Najashi as "Thiqah Thiqah `Ayn"! from the companions of al-Sadiq and al-Kazim yet he believes Musa al-Kazim was the Mahdi and rejects the Imamah of `Ali al-Reda.

What a "clear" religion, the least we can say is that if AT LEAST these Shia knew that the number of Imams was twelve they wouldn't believe in what they believe.

al-Hassan bin `Ali al-Ta'ee known as al-Tatiri, al-Tusi says about him in his Fehrest:


17 - علي بن الحسن الطاطري الكوفي 1، كان واقفيا شديد العناد في مذهبه، صعب العصبية على من خالفه من الامامية. وله كتب كثيرة في نصرة مذهبه، وله كتب في الفقه، رواها عن الرجال الموثوق بهم وبرواياتهم، فلأجل ذلك ذكرناها، منها: كتاب الحيض، وكتاب المواقيت، وكتاب القبلة، وكتاب فضائل أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، وكتاب الصداق، وكتاب النكاح، وكتاب الولاية، وكتاب المعرفة، وكتاب الفطرة، وكتاب حجج الطلاق، وقيل: إنها أكثر من ثلاثين كتابا.

[`Ali bin al-Hassan al-Tatiri al-Kufi, he was a Waqifi very stubborn in his Madhab, very extreme against those who oppose him from the Imamiyyah. Has many books to support his Madhab, and books in Fiqh, which he narrated from the trustworthy narrators, which is why we mentioned from them: Book of Hayd, book of Mawaqeet, book of Qiblah, book of virtues of Ameer al-Mumineen (as), book of Sadaq, book of Nikah, book of Wilayah, (ect...) And it is said: they are more than thirty books.]


al-Jawahiri said in al-Mufeed:

8016 - 8014 - 8028 - علي بن الحسن بن محمد الطائي: الجرمي المعروف بالطاطري من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) - ثقة - من وجوه الواقفة وشيوخهم قاله النجاشي

[`Ali bin al-Hassan bin Muhammad al-Ta'ee: al-Jurami, known as al-Tatiri from the companions of al-Kazim (as) -Thiqah - from the best of the Waqifah and their scholars as stated by Najashi.]

This shia Faqih is so trustworthy that he doesn't believe in the last five Imams including the Mahdi and wrote books to prove that al-Kazim was the last Imam and the Mahdi.

Ghalib bin `Uthman al-Munqari, al-Jawahiri placed him in his Mufeed:

9259 - 9258 - 9277 - غالب بن عثمان: واقفي من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) له كتاب، قاله الشيخ وطريقه اليه صحيح - روى 21 رواية، منها عن
أبي عبد الله (ع) - روى في كامل الزيارات - متحد مع لاحقه الثقة -.
9260 - 9259 - 9278 - غالب بن عثمان المنقري: مولى كوفي سمال بمعنى كحال - ثقة - من أصحاب الصادق (ع) - روى عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قاله
النجاشي - له كتاب - وذكره الشيخ قائلا " غالب بن عثمان المنقري مولاهم السمال الكوفي " - متحد مع سابقه.

[Ghalib bin `Uthman: Waqifi from the companions of al-Kazim (as), he has a book (ect...)
Ghalib bin `Uthman al-Munqari: Mawla Kufi, Samal meaning Kahhal, - Thiqah - from the companions of al-Sadiq (as), narrated from abu `Abdillah (as) as stated by Najashi...]


Another trustworthy Shia who narrates from two Imams and accompanies them and writes their Hadith, yet knows nothing about the Imams.

One last small example, Muhammad bin Bakr bin Janah, al-Jawahiri said:

10321 - 10316 - 10343 - محمد بن بكر بن جناح: أبو عبد الله كوفي مولى - ثقة - من أصحاب الكاظم (ع) - له كتاب - واقفي - روى عدة روايات - و هو غير بكر بن محمد بن جناح

[Muhammad bin Bakr bin Janah: abu `Abdullah, Kufi, Mawla -Thiqah - from the companions of al-Kazim (as) - He has a book - Waqifi - narrated several narrations - and he is not Bakr bin Muhammad bin Janah]



Enough examples from the Waqifi Shia, now to conclude...

Whether we are talking about the Fatahiyyah which we previously discussed or the Waqifiyyah which we just discussed above, we can't help but notice that these men are all together in Kufa, all living at the same time, all hearing the exact same stories or narrations which circulated in Kufa, yet we see this major difference, and they have accompanied al-Sadiq and his father or his son and we all know that al-Sadiq narrated almost all the narrations of the twelver Shia, maybe around 23,000 narrations in their books, so all of these narrations were available at the time, even though the Shia were in Kufa and the Imams were in Madinah and even though the Shia scholars keep claiming that they were times of Taqqiyah, yet this huge load of narrations traveled from Madinah to Kufa in some way as they claim, and these Shia had access to these same narrations, especially the renowned scholars among them and the companions of the Imams... So how come it appears to me that the Shia of those days had absolutely no idea about who the Imams are, and what was their number!?

May Allah save us from following our desires and our own hand-made religions.

[TripolySunni]

al-Bada' and al-Saduq.

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Today we have something fun to play with : )

You all know the narrations that contain the ancient Shia belief of "al-Bada'", for example:


ما بدا لله في شيء كما بدا له في إسماعيل ابني

Imam al-Sadiq says: "It hasn't appear to Allah in anything as it appeared to him in my son Isma`il."

Meaning that it would appear to Allah that Isma`il was the next Imam, then after Isma`il died in his father's life, Allah (astaghfirullah) made the Imam his brother Musa instead, in other words he changed his mind as if he apparently never knew that the first one was going to die.

To make a long story short, the Shia at the time fabricated these narrations as excuses to switch from following one Imam to the next, and so that they wouldn't appear as liars in front of their followers.

Now the Twelver Shia scholar al-Saduq does like this narration, so he refutes it in his book "Kamal ul-Deen wa Tamam ul-Ni`mah" pg.69:


ما ذلك الخبر؟ ومن رواه؟ ومن تلقّاه بالقبول؟ فلم يجدوا إلى ذلك سبيلاً ، وإنّما هذه حكاية ولّدها قوم قالوا بامامة إسماعيل ، ليس لها أصلٌ

[What is this narration? who narrated it? who accepted it? they couldn't answer, this is only a story made up by some folks who believed in the Imamah of Isma`il, it is baseless.]

Then he makes Takfir on those who believe in it by saying:


وعندنا من زعم أنَّ الله عزَّ وجلَّ يبدو له اليوم في شيء لم يعلمه أمس فهو كافرٌ والبراءة منه واجبة

[We believe that whoever states that something can be revealed to Allah today that he didn't know yesterday is a Kafir, and it is a duty to be free from him.]

Now we'll reveal to him what he didn't know, Bismillah:


رواه سعد بن عبد الله الأشعري قال: حدثني أبو هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري قال: كنت عند أبي الحسن عليه السلام وقت وفاة ابنه أبي جعفر - وقد كان أشار إليه ودل عليه - فإني لافكر في نفسي وأقول: هذه قضية أبي إبراهيم وقضية إسماعيل، فأقبل علي أبو الحسن عليه السلام فقال: نعم يا أبا هاشم بدا لله تعالى في أبي جعفر وصير مكانه أبا محمد، كما بدا لله في إسماعيل بعدما دل عليه أبو عبد الله عليه السلام ونصبه، وهو كما حدثت به نفسك وإن كره المبطلون، أبو محمد ابني الخلف من بعدي عنده ما تحتاجون إليه ومعه آلة الإمامة والحمد لله

Sa`d bin `Abdullah al-'Ash`ari said: abu Hashim Dawoud bin al-Qassim al-Ja`fari said: I was with Imam abu al-Hassan (as) when his son abu Ja`far died -and he had pointed to him and appointed him- So I started thinking to myself: "This is similar to the case of Imam abu Ibrahim (as) and Isma`il." so abu al-Hassan (as) came to me and said: "Yes O abu Hashim, it appeared to Allah in abu Ja`far and he replaced him with abu Muhammad, it also appeared to Allah in Isma`il after his father abu `Abdullah had pointed to him and appointed him, it is exactly as you thought to yourself even if the haters will hate. abu Muhammad my son is my successor after me, he has what you need and the Imamah praise be to Allah."

source: Ghaybat al-Tusi, page 200.
grading: SAHIH.


In other words, al-Saduq is clueless because this is an authentic Shia narration with a chain of trustworthy Imami Shia, No Isma`ilis, No Zaydis.
Also it turns out this happened twice, not just with Isma`il and Musa, but it also happened with the children of `Ali al-Hadi, Muhammad and Hasan.

al-Bada' x 2

; )

Salam `Aleykum,

[TripolySunni]

To al-Aws and al-Khazraj: "You are from me and I am from you"

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

I found this interesting narration from Ka`b ibn Malik may Allah grant him Jannah and it is long so I will post the relevant part:

فتكلم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فتلا ودعا إلى الله عز وجل ورغب في الإسلام قال أبايعكم على أن تمنعوني مما تمنعون منه نساءكم وأبناءكم قال فأخذ البراء بن معرور بيده قال نعم والذي بعثك بالحق لنمنعنك مما نمنع منه أزرنا فبايعنا يا رسول الله فنحن والله أهل الحروب ورثناها كابرا عن كابر قال فاعترض القول والبراء يكلم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبو الهيثم بن النبهان حليف بني عبد الأشهل فقال يا رسول الله إن بيننا وبين الرجال حبالا وإنا قاطعوها وهي العهود فهل عسيت إن نحن فعلنا ذلك وأظهرك الله عز وجل أن ترجع وتدعنا قال فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال بل الدم الدم والهدم الهدم أنتم مني و أنا منكم أحارب من حاربتم وأسالم من سالمتم وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخرجوا إلي اثني عشر نقيبا منكم يكونون على قومهم فأخرجوا منهم اثني عشر نقيبا منهم تسعة من الخزرج وثلاثة من الأوس .


[...The Prophet (SAWS) spoke, so he recited Qur'an and called to Allah almighty and invited to Islam in goodness, he (SAWS) said: "I will grant you the Bay`ah as long as you prevent harm from reaching me as you prevent it from reaching your women and children." al-Bara' bin `Amro grabbed his hand and said: "Yes, by He who sent you with the truth! we will prevent harm from reaching you as we prevent it from ourselves, so grant us the Bay`ah O Messenger of Allah, for by Allah we are people of war, we inherited it from our fathers generation by generation." abu al-Haytham bin al-Nabhan interrupted and he was the ally of bani `Abdul-Ashhal, he said: "O Prophet of Allah, between us and those men -meaning Jews- are agreements and covenants, and we shall cut these ties with them, so if we did this and Allah granted you victory, should we expect that you would not leave us, and join the ranks of your people (meaning Quraish)?" so the Prophet (SAWS) smiled and said: "Nay, it would never be; your blood will be my blood. In life and death, you are from me and I am from you. I will fight whom you fight and I will make peace with those with whom you make peace." the Prophet (SAWS) said: "Bring out from among you twelve representatives to oversee the needs of their people." and it was nine from the tribe of al-Khazraj and three from that of al-Aws...]

sources:
-Fiqh al-Seerah pg149 and al-Albani said "Sahih".
-Majma` al-Zawa'ed 6/45 and al-Haythami said: "Narrators are those of al-Sahih except Ibn Ishaq and he declared hearing."

Salam `Aleykum,

[TripolySunni]

Shia say: God guarantees the safety of the prophet but not the Qur'an.

al-Salamu `Aleykum wa-Rahmatullah,

The Imami Shia write arguments to prove the Imamah of `Ali (ra) but they also write in defense of the theory of Imamah and try to push away all objections. What you will see in this thread is but one of many contradictions between what they write to prove it and what they write to defend it.

THE FIRST TRUTH: ALLAH GUARANTEES THE SAFETY OF THE PROPHET (SAWS) IF HE ANNOUNCES IMAMAH.

The Imami Shia scholars have spoken of this matter during their talk on the event of Ghadeer. In brief, Allah ordered the Prophet (SAWS) to deliver the news of the Imamah of `Ali (ra) to the Muslims, but he (SAWS) was reluctant and afraid, he feared that they would harm him and they would reject the religion. The Prophet (SAWS) did not announce this matter until Allah promised him safety from the people and protection of their harm as stated in authentic Shia narrations which interpret the following verse:

{O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.} [al-Ma'idah:67]

We conclude from this point, that the Imami Shia scholars believe that Allah told his Prophet (SAWS) to announce the Imamah of `Ali (ra) loudly, in front of all Muslims and that he would prevent the hypocrites and conspirators from harming him.

THE SECOND TRUTH: ALLAH DOES NOT GUARANTEES THE SAFETY OF THE QUR'AN IF IT ANNOUNCES IMAMAH.

The Imami scholars have stated many times that Allah intentionally kept the matter of Imamah unclear in his holy book, so that the enemies of Islam would not be enraged and as a result they would tamper with the Qur'anic text and corrupt it, in order to get rid of the Imamah which prevents them from assuming seats of power and authority.

The first case: Making Imamah unclear by not mentioning the name of the Imam explicitly.


حعفر مرتضى العاملي في كتابه (الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم ( ص ) ) ( 32 / 21 ) :[ ولعله لأجل ذلك لم يذكر اسم الإمام علي " عليه السلام " في القرآن . . حفظاً للقرآن من أن يحرفه من هو أشر وأضر ممن رمى القرآن بالنبل وهو يقول : تهددني بجبار عنيد * فها أنا ذاك جبار عنيد إذا ما جئت ربك يوم حشر * فقل : يا رب مزقني الوليد نعم ، إنه من أجل ذلك وسواه لم يذكر اسم الإمام علي " عليه السلام " في القرآن بصراحة ].

al-`Allamah al-Muhaqqiq Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili says in his book "al-Sahih min Seerat al-Nabi al-A`zam" 32/21:

[Maybe it's because of this that the name of Imam `Ali (as) was not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an (…) to safeguard the Qur'an from being corrupted by ones who are worse than he who shot it with an arrow while saying:
((Are you threatening me with 'obstinate tyrant'? * I am the obstinate tyrant! * On the Day of Judgment, tell Allah: 'al-Waleed tore me up'.))
It was because of this and other matters that the name of `Ali (as) was not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.]

To explain what was being said, he was referring to al-Waleed bin Yazid bin `Abdul-Malik bin Marwan, and it is said that this man opened the Qur'an once and read the following verse:

{ And they requested victory from Allah, and disappointed, [therefore], was every obstinate tyrant.} [Ibrahim:15]

So he did not like this verse, he then placed the Qur'an somewhere and shot it with an arrow while saying:


تهددني بجبار عنيد فها أنا ذاك جبار عنيد
إذا ما جئت ربك يوم حشر فقل يا رب مزقني الوليد

((Are you threatening me with 'obstinate tyrant'? * I am the obstinate tyrant! * On the Day of Judgment, tell Allah: 'al-Waleed tore me up'.))

In brief al-`Amili is saying that if Allah mentioned the name of `Ali (ra) clearly then those who are even worse than al-Waleed would have corrupted and destroyed the Qur'an.


الخميني في كتابه ( كشف الأسرار ) ص131: [ لو كانت مسألة الإمامة قد تم تثبيتها في القرآن ، فإن أولئك الذين لا يعنون بالإسلام والقرآن إلا لأغراض الدنيا والرئاسة كانوا يتخذون من القرآن وسيلة لتنفيذ أغراضهم المشبوهة ، ويحذفون تلك الآيات من صفحاته ، ويسقطون القرآن من أنظار العالمين إلى الأبد، ويلصقون العار - وإلى الأبد- بالمسلمين والقرآن ، ويثبتون على القرآن ذلك العيب الذي يأخذه المسلمون على كتب اليهود والنصارى ].

Shia grand Ayatullah Imam al-Khomeini says in "Kashf al-Asrar" pg131:

[If the matter of Imamah was established in the Qur'an, then those who only seek worldly things such as leadership through Islam and the Qur'an would have taken the book as a means to achieve their goals, they would erase such verses from its pages, and remove the Qur'an from the sight of the people forever, and they would attach eternal disgrace to the Muslims and the Qur'an, they would mistreat the Qur'an as the Muslims say the Jews and Christians mistreated their books.]


مصطفى الخميني في كتابه ( تفسير القرآن الكريم ) ( 2 / 331-332 ) :[ وحيث اقتضت السياسة الإسلامية والتقية الإلهية كتمان أمر الولي المطلق بالاسم الصريح في الكتاب الإلهي ، حتى يكمل الكتاب التدويني بالتطابق مع الكتاب التكويني ، ويعلم الأصل الثالث لكافة أبناء الهداية وأفراد البشر ، فكأنه تكفل ببيانه وتوضيحه على الوجه الآخر الأحسن ، رعاية لجميع الجهات والجوانب ، ومحافظة على أصل الإسلام من أعدائه ، وصيانة للكتاب الإلهي عن الانحراف والتحريف والتوهين والتكذيب ].

Shia scholar Mustafa al-Khomeini says in his book "Tafseer al-Qur'an al-Kareem" 2/331-332:

[Islamic politics and Godly Taqiyyah have decreed that the name of the absolute ruler not be mentioned explicitly in the Godly book (…) it is as if he took responsibility of clarifying it through other, better means, out of care for all sides of this matter, and to protect the foundation of Islam from its enemies, and to maintain the Godly book from being corrupted and falsified.]


علي السيستاني ص 143 :[ 536 . السؤال : ما الحكمة من عدم ذكر اسم الإمام علي في القرآن الكريم ؟
الجواب : يمكن أن تكون الحكمة فيه أن الضغائن التي أوجبت الصاق تهمة الهجر والهذيان بالرسول الأكرم صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - والعياذ بالله - لم يبعد أن توجب التشكيك في صحة ما أنزل من القرآن في علي - عليه السلام - لو كان تصريح باسمه الشريف فتكون النتيجة أسوأ مما هو عليه الآن من الضلال العام ].

Their Grand Ayatullah Sayyed `Ali al-Sistani says in his book of "Istifta'at" pg143:

[Question #536: What is the wisdom behind not mentioning the name of Imam `Ali in the holy Qur'an?

Answer: It could be that the grudges that caused some to accuse the Prophet (SAWS) of hallucinating and of being delirious -I seek refuge in Allah- these grudges could also cause someone to cast doubts on what was revealed in the Qur'an concerning `Ali (as), if his noble name was explicitly mentioned then the result would be even worse [for that person] from just general misguidance.]

We clearly see the Shia scholars accusing the first three Caliphs (ra) of attempting to distort the book of Allah if it had the name of `Ali (ra), out of hatred for him and thirst for power.

May Allah save us from the evil devilish thoughts of the Shia scholars.

The second case: Making Imamah unclear by including it between other verses to make the context vague.

Shia scholars claim that the verses proving the Wilayah of `Ali (ra) have been placed by Allah in the middle of other verses with completely different context so that people wouldn't distort them, such as the verse of `Ali giving the ring while in Ruku` which is included between verses talking about being loyal and supportive of believers and not being friendly with Jews and Christians, or the verse of purity and the event of the cloak being placed between verses talking about the mothers of believers and so on…

Below the Shia scholar and Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi talks about the verse of completion of religion and how it
was placed in the middle of general verses talking about rulings of Halal and Haraam concerning meat.

ناصر مكارم الشيرازي في تفسيره ( الأمثل في تفسير كتاب الله المنزل ) ( 3 / 602 ) :[ ثانيا : هناك احتمال بأن يكون سبب حشر موضوع واقعة " غدير خم " في آية تشمل على موضوع لا صلة لها به مطلقا ، مثل موضوع أحكام الحلال والحرام من اللحوم ، إنما هو لصيانة الموضوع الأول من أن تصل إليه يد التحريف أو الحذف أو التغيير .. وهي تدل بوضوح على الحساسية المفرطة التي كانت لدى نفر من الناس تجاه قضية الخلافة بعد النبي ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) حيث لم يتركوا وسيلة إلا استخدموها لإنكار هذا الامر . فلا يستبعد - والحالة هذه - أن تتخذ اجراءات وقائية لحماية الأدلة والوثائق الخاصة بالخلافة من أجل إيصالها إلى الأجيال المتعاقبة دون أن تمسها يد التحريف أو الحذف ، ومن هذه الإجراءات حشر موضوع الخلافة - المهم جدا - في القرآن بين آيات الأحكام الشرعية الفرعية لإبعاد عيون وأيدي المعارضين والعابثين عنها ].

Grand Ayatullah Nasir Makarim al-Shirazi says in "al-Amthal fi Tafseer Kitab Allah" 3/602:

[Secondly: it is possible that the topic of the event of "Ghadeer Khum" was pushed into a verse that talks about a completely unrelated matter, such as the rulings of Halal and Haraam meat. It is only to guard the first topic from the hands of corruption and deletion (…) it clearly shows the sensitivity that a group of people had towards the successorship after the Prophet (SAWS), where they didn't leave any method unless they used it to disprove this matter. So it is not far -and it is the case- that there would be preventive methods to preserve the proofs and documents pertaining to Khilafah so it could reach the later generations without Tahreef(corruption). From these methods is to push the matter of Khilafah -which is very important- in the Qur'an between the verses of general rulings to lead the eyes of the opposition away from it.]

علي الميلاني ينقل تصريح آيتهم العظمى عبد الحسين شرف الدين في كتابه ( نفحات الأزهار ) ( 20 / 67 ):[ والسيد شرف الدين العاملي ذهب إلى أن النكتة هي أنه لو جاءت الآية بلفظ المفرد ، فإن شانئي علي وأهل البيت وسائر المنافقين لا يطيقون أن يسمعوها كذلك ، وإذ لا يمكنهم حينئذ التمويه والتضليل ، فيؤدي ذلك إلى التلاعب بألفاظ القرآن وتحريف كلماته أو نحو ذلك مما يخشى عواقبه على الإسلام ].

Their Ayatullah `Ali al-Milani reports the statement of their grand Ayatullah `Abdul-Hussein Sharaf-ul-Deen in his book "Nafahat al-Azhar" 20/67:

[al-Sayyed Sharaf-ul-Deen al-`Amili had the opinion that if the verse [verse of Wilayah] came in the singular form, then the haters of `Ali and Ahlul-Bayt and the rest of the hypocrites wouldn't tolerate to hear it as such, that way they couldn't hide the truth and misguide the people, so it would lead them to corrupt the text of the Qur'an or the like, the consequences of this would be fearsome for Islam]

He means the verse in which the Shia claim that `Ali (ra) gave Zakat while bowing down, it should have been in the singular form because `Ali (ra) is just one man but Allah placed it in the plural form out of fear (I seek refuge in Allah) that the haters of `Ali (ra),
might corrupt it and change it.

آيتهم العظمى جعفر السبحاني قال في كتابه ( مفاهيم القرآن ) ( 10 / 171 ):[ ولكن يبقى هنا سؤال آخر ، وهو أنه إذا كانت الآية ، آية مستقلة فلماذا جاءت في المصحف جزءا من آية أخرى ، ولم تكتب بصورة آية تامة في جنب الآيات الأخرى ؟
الجواب : التاريخ يطلعنا بصفحات طويلة على موقف قريش وغيرهم من أهل البيت عليهم السلام ، فإن مرجل الحسد ما زال يغلي والاتجاهات السلبية ضدهم كانت كالشمس في رابعة النهار ، فاقتضت الحكمة الإلهية أن تجعل الآية في ثنايا الآيات المتعلقة بنساء النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من أجل تخفيف الحساسية ضد أهل البيت ، وإن كانت الحقيقة لا تخفى على من نظر إليها بعين صحيحة ، وأن الآية تهدف إلى جماعة أخرى غير نساء النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم كما بيناه قبل قليل ].

Their grand Ayatullah Ja`far al-Subhani said in his book "Mafaheem al-Qur'an" 10/171:

[Here remains one question, if the verse [of purification] was a single independent verse, then why did it reach us in the Qur'an as a part of another verse? and it wasn't written as an independent verse next to the others?

Answer: History within its pages informs us of the position that the Quraysh and others had towards Ahlul-Bayt (as), there was great jealousy and the negativity towards them was as clear as day light. The Godly wisdom decreed that the verse be placed in the middle of the verses of the Prophet's (SAWS) wives, so that the tension against Ahlul-Bayt can be reduced, although the truth cannot be hidden for anyone who looks at it with correct vision, that the verse is meant for another group, other than the wives as we previously clarified.]

عالمهم محسن الخزازي عن فيلسوفهم مرتضى المطهري وذلك في كتابه ( بداية المعارف الإلهية في شرح عقائد الإمامية ) ( 2 / 72-73 ):[ وأما لما أشار إليه البعض الآخر كالأستاذ الشهيد المطهري - قدس سره - من أنها نزلت في حق الخمسة الطاهرة ، ولكن وضعت بين الآيات المذكورة ، لمصلحة حفظ الإسلام عن تبليغات سوء المنافقين وتمردهم وإعراضهم ، لان النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله - كان خائفا من التمرد الصريح عن الإسلام والقرآن الكريم ، لا من أن يذهبوا إلى التأويل مع قيام القرينة الداخلية والخارجية على المعنى المراد فجعلت الآية المذكورة وأشباهها كآية إكمال الدين في ضمن الآيات الأخر ، لأن يتمكن المخالف من التأويل ، ولا يضطر إلى الإعراض الصريح ، والتمرد الواضح ، فالجملة حينئذ تكون معترضة بين الآيات الأخرى كما لا يخفى ].

Shia scholar Muhsin al-Khizari reports the statement of their philosopher Murtada al-Mutahhari in his book "Bidayat al-Ma`arif al-Ilahiyyah fi Sharh `Aqaed al-Imamiyyah" 2/72-73:

[As for what others pointed out such as the teacher and martyr al-Mutahhari may Allah sanctify his secret that it was revealed regarding the five pure ones, but was placed between the mentioned verses for the benefit of preserving Islam from the hypocrites and their mutiny and rejection, because the Prophet (SAWS) was afraid from a clear rebellion against Islam and the Qur'an, he wasn't afraid that they'd just go for false interpretation although the proofs for the intended meaning are available from inside and outside the [Qur'anic] text, and other similar verses such as that of the completion of religion between other verses, it is so that the opposition can give their interpretation without necessarily rejecting the explicit text, and doing a clear rebellion]

It is also good to note that other Shia scholars such as al-Majlisi and al-Milani have a slightly different belief, that the verses were arranged by the companions themselves and they have intentionally placed the aforementioned verses in strange irrelevant locations to misguide the people.

Enough of the blasphemy of the Shia scholars, what we have shown is enough for the intelligent reader to reach a conclusion, after observing the following facts:

First Shia declaration:
Allah almighty tells the Prophet (SAWS): Announce the Wilayah explicitly and loudly and I guarantee your safety from the evil hands of the hypocrites and conspirators.

Second Shia declaration:
Allah almighty tells the holy Qur'an: Beware! never announce the Wilayah explicitly and loudly because I shall not guarantee your safety from the evil hands of the hypocrites and conspirators.

I leave the conclusion to the intelligent reader and those Shia with a shred of dignity and "`Aql".

Salam `Aleykum,

[TripolySunni]

Does the Iranian Constitution agree with the Imami Shia faith?

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Here are some of the articles from the constitution of the Iranian Republic:


Article 5
During the Occultation of the Wali al-Asr (may God hasten his reappearance), the wilayah and leadership of the Ummah devolve upon the just ('adil] and pious [muttaqi] faqih, who is fully aware of the circumstances of his age; courageous, resourceful, and possessed of administrative ability, will assume the responsibilities of this office in accordance with Article 107.


Article 107
After the demise of the eminent marji' al-taqlid and great leader of the universal Islamic revolution, and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatullah al-'Uzma Imam Khumayni - quddisa sirruh al-sharif - who was recognized and accepted as marji' and Leader by a decisive majority of the people, the task of appointing the Leader shall be vested with the experts elected by the people. The experts will review and consult among themselves concerning all the fuqaha' possessing the qualifications specified in Articles 5 and 109. In the event they find one of them better versed in Islamic regulations, the subjects of the fiqh, or in political and social Issues, or possessing general popularity or special prominence for any of the qualifications mentioned in Article 109, they shall elect him as the Leader. Otherwise, in the absence of such a superiority, they shall elect and declare one of them as the Leader. The Leader thus elected by the Assembly of Experts shall assume all the powers of the wilayat al-amr and all the responsibilities arising therefrom. The Leader is equal with the rest of the people of the country in the eyes of law.



Article 6
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the affairs of the country must be administered on the basis of public opinion expressed by the means of elections, including the election of the President, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the members of councils, or by means of referenda in matters specified in other articles of this Constitution.


Article 7
In accordance with the command of the Qur'an contained in the verse ("Their affairs are by consultations among them" [42:38]) and ("Consult them in affairs" [3:159]), consultative bodies - such as the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Provincial Councils, and the City, Region, District, and Village Councils and the likes of them - are the decision-making and administrative organs of the country. The nature of each of these councils, together with the manner of their formation, their jurisdiction, and scope of their duties and functions, is determined by the Constitution and laws derived from it.



--- END ---


Let's compare this garbage the deceivers made up to the gibberish written in the famous Shia website "al-Islam", let's compare it to the book they uploaded called "Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet (s) by Sayyid Sa'eed Akhtar Rizvi":

[When Allah orders that man to do something yet is aware that man cannot do it or that it is very difficult without His assistance, then if Allah does not provide this assistance, He would be contradicting His own aim. Obviously, such negligence is evil according to reason. Therefore lutf is incumbent on Allah.]

^ So Allah orders the Shia to follow the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt (who are only 12), yet they are unavailable today thus according to this introduction Allah is evil Astaghfirullah!

[The Shi'ahs believe that, like the Prophet, an Imam should excel the ummah in all virtues, such as knowledge, bravery, piety and charity, and should possess complete knowledge of the Divine Law. If he does not, and this high post is entrusted to a less perfect person when a more perfect one is available, the inferior will have been given preference over the superior, which is wrong in reason and against Divine Justice. Therefore, no inferior person may receive Imamate from Allah when there exists a person superior to him.]

^ The Shia will tell you the Mahdi exists yet they are being led by Khamine'i, this means they are committing great injustice.

[Secondly, an Imam is the ruler and head of the ummah and the ummah should follow him unreservedly in every matter. Now, if he commits a sin the people would be bound to follow him in that sin as well. The untenability of such a position is self-evident; for obedience in sin is evil, unlawful and forbidden. Moreover, it would mean that he should be obeyed and disobeyed at one and the same time; that is, obedience to him would be obligatory yet forbidden, which is manifestly absurd.]

^ Which means that following Khomeini was absurd since he's liable to err.

[Fourthly, the Imam is the defender of the Divine Law and this work cannot be entrusted to fallible hands nor can any such person maintain it properly. For this very reason, infallibility has been admitted to be an indispensable condition to prophethood; and the considerations which make it essential in the case of a prophet make it so in the case of an Imam and caliph as well.]

^ If infallibility was essential then why elect a fallible man like Ahmadi Nijad and follow him?

[It is for this reason that the Shi'ah Ithna 'Asharis (The Twelvers) believe that only Allah can appoint a successor to the Prophet; that the ummah has no choice in this matter-its only duty is to follow such a divinely-appointed Imam or caliph.

The Sunnis, on the other hand, believe that it is the duty of the ummah to appoint a caliph.]

^ Apparently the Iranians adopted a "Sunni" constitution then.

[The following verses of the Qur'an confirm the views held by the Shi'ahs:

And thy Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no right to choose; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate! (28:68).

This clearly shows that man has no right to make any selection; it lies entirely in the hands of Allah.]

^ This is pure Shia genius right here, I'm guessing it also means I cannot make the choice of going to the toilet or what pattern is my apartment wallpaper going to be.

[If the ma'sum (infallible) angels were given no say in the appointment of a caliph, how can fallible humans expect to take the whole authority of such an appointment in their own hands?]

^ Ask your 13th Imam Khomeini.

I do not wish to refute this entire funny book, but just to show the readers how this Shia religion is evolving through time, in their old books everything was about Imamah and Imams, and now they brushed them aside, they have no further need of "Imams", the fallible Ayatullas now pick and choose whom they want and run the country based on the opinions of the majority of people.

Salam Aleykum,

[jello]

[The following verses of the Qur'an confirm the views held by the Shi'ahs:

And thy Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no right to choose; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate! (28:68).

This clearly shows that man has no right to make any selection; it lies entirely in the hands of Allah.]

Others can correct me if I am wrong, but the Verse quoted would be totally in the Ash'aris favor and not the Shias in terms of the creation of the actions of the servants, since the Verse is not restricted in its wording to anything in particular (like Khilaphah, or anything else, etc.) but rather says that Allah creates what He wills and chooses what He wills. It cannot be said that Allah has a choice or will only in Khilaphah-related matters, since that would be open polytheism

[TripolySunni]

Others can correct me if I am wrong, but the Verse quoted would be totally in the Ash'aris favor and not the Shias in terms of the creation of the actions of the servants, since the Verse is not restricted in its wording to anything in particular (like Khilaphah, or anything else, etc.) but rather says that Allah creates what He wills and chooses what He wills. It cannot be said that Allah has a choice or will only in Khilaphah-related matters, since that would be open polytheism

and Allah chose Abu Bakr (ra) ; )

[Bilal7]

Could anyone please tell me where the Shias have gotten the belief of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) hallucinating from?

[AussieLebo]

10086
Imam nawawi narrates that mut'ah was banned twice from the prophet himself until the day of judgement. Not all sahaba's knew the rasul forbade mut'ah such as jabir bin abdullah who kept practising the forbidden act without knowing until omar made it clear that the prophet banned it, and he didn't allow anyone from practising it. It was meant for some sahaba who did jihad, but immediately forbidden by the prophet. As soon as islam was complete, everything became clear and many acts were abrogated and forbidden.
I can't believe how shia's can believe in such prostitution.

[a.s.]

Bump

[a.s.]

I've read a few fatawa so far which list the common beliefs some shi'ites have which put them out of the fold of Islam.

Heres one: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/29530

All the Shiites are not regarded as Kaafir. That Shiite who believes that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) is deity or that Jibreel (Alayhis salaam) instead of taking revelation to Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) mistakenly took it to Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) or the Qur?an is incomplete or altered or Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was not a Sahabi or the accusation made on Aisha (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was true, etc will be a Kaafir. If a Shiite does not believe in the above and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a Kaafir.

Here's another: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darulifta-deoband/26701

If a person prefers Hadhrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) on other sahabah and he does not believe in other beliefs of Shias, then this particular person is not kafir. But, a Shia is kafir who believes that Hadhrat Jibreel did mistake in conveying revelation to the right person or Hadhrat Ali is god, or one who accuses Hadhrat Ayishah of adultery or professes that the Quran is corrupted or denies Hadhrat Abu Bakr being a sahabi


So the reasons a shia will be a kafir:
- Believes Ali :anhu: to be god
- Believes Jibril :alayhis: made a mistake when delivering the Quran
- Believes the Quran to be corrupted or incomplete
- Accuses A'isha :anha: to have committed adultery
- Denies that Abu Bakr :anhu: was a sahabi

And of course, believing there imams to be divine and ma'sum is another reason for there kufr, among many others.

However, the fatawa I've read all cite the above 5 kufri beliefs. Are these more common among the shi'ites than the others? I was absolutely shocked by the second one.

[stanwir23]

"To this, I would answer that amongst us, we stipulate that a condition for marriage is that the guardian has to give his consent before the marraige goes ahead, which is not necessarily the case in Twelver Shiaism".

To this, I would say that your are mistaken because an adult (who has attained puberty) women does not need a guardian's consent for nikah.

[a.s.]

Do all of the kuffar shi'ites believe in Mu'tah, or only the twelvers?

Also, are the kuffar shi'ites growing in number? I understand they are a minority group, bu is it reasonable to say that they will soon die out like deviant groups of the past did?

[New_Muslim]

I've read a few fatawa so far which list the common beliefs some shi'ites have which put them out of the fold of Islam.

Heres one: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/29530

All the Shiites are not regarded as Kaafir. That Shiite who believes that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) is deity or that Jibreel (Alayhis salaam) instead of taking revelation to Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) mistakenly took it to Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) or the Qur?an is incomplete or altered or Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was not a Sahabi or the accusation made on Aisha (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was true, etc will be a Kaafir. If a Shiite does not believe in the above and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a Kaafir.

Here's another: http://islamqa.org/hanafi/darulifta-deoband/26701

If a person prefers Hadhrat Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) on other sahabah and he does not believe in other beliefs of Shias, then this particular person is not kafir. But, a Shia is kafir who believes that Hadhrat Jibreel did mistake in conveying revelation to the right person or Hadhrat Ali is god, or one who accuses Hadhrat Ayishah of adultery or professes that the Quran is corrupted or denies Hadhrat Abu Bakr being a sahabi


So the reasons a shia will be a kafir:
- Believes Ali :anhu: to be god
- Believes Jibril :alayhis: made a mistake when delivering the Quran
- Believes the Quran to be corrupted or incomplete
- Accuses A'isha :anha: to have committed adultery
- Denies that Abu Bakr :anhu: was a sahabi

And of course, believing there imams to be divine and ma'sum is another reason for there kufr, among many others.

However, the fatawa I've read all cite the above 5 kufri beliefs. Are these more common among the shi'ites than the others? I was absolutely shocked by the second one.

I think all Shias believe he was a companions, but the dispute has always been whether he was the intended and rightful successor to the Prophet Mohammed (SAW).

[New_Muslim]

Do all of the kuffar shi'ites believe in Mu'tah, or only the twelvers?

Also, are the kuffar shi'ites growing in number? I understand they are a minority group, bu is it reasonable to say that they will soon die out like deviant groups of the past did?

Mainly the Twelver, I believe.

I don't think they will die out just like that.

****ism has been around for centuries and unfortunately it's not going anywhere.

[a.s.]

I don't think they will die out just like that.

shi'ism has been around for centuries and unfortunately it's not going anywhere.

Lets hope you are wrong.

[New_Muslim]

Lets hope you are wrong.

Me too.

The most ignorant and demented cult on the face of this Earth.

[Jinn]

Mainly the Twelver, I believe.

I don't think they will die out just like that.

****ism has been around for centuries and unfortunately it's not going anywhere.

True it has been around for centuries and is one of the oldest satanic cults around.

But I wonder with re-emergence of a righteously guided Caliph would that be the end of this cult, it is quite likely, but then again that's just mere speculation on my behalf.

[New_Muslim]

True it has been around for centuries and is one of the oldest satanic cults around.

But I wonder with re-emergence of a righteously guided Caliph would that be the end of this cult, it is quite likely, but then again that's just mere speculation on my behalf.

Probably.

Let's hope when Allahs's beloved Rasool returns to this world Sayadina Isa (AS) puts an end to their cult once and for all.

We'll see if their Mahdi will revive Aisha, Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) from their resting places.

[Majlisi]

I have a question here for the Sunnis who criticize Shiahs for mut`ah.

1. Did you know that many Sahaba and early scholars believed that it was permissible, and did it, (after the Prophet (pbuh) allegedly banned it)? The most famous case being Ibn Abbas.

So, if you says mut`ah is zina, then you're basically insulting the Sahaba plus Sunni scholars.

Furthermore, I would like to share a particularly interesting case for this. There was a very highly praised Sunni scholar who lived around a century after Rasul Allah (pbuh). His name is Abdul-Malik Ibn Abdul-Aziz Ibn Jurayj. He is an Imam, Hafidh, and Allamah. Al-Dhahabi, writes the following in Siyaru Alam Al-Nubalah:

كان إبن جريج يرى المتعة ، تزوج بستين إمرأة

Ibn Jurayj believed in mutah, and he married sixty women

And this:

إستمتع إبن جريج بتسعين إمرأة

He did mutah with 90 women

Would you dare insult him by calling mutah a zinah or prostitution?

Wasallam

[(Huzaifah)]

I have a question here for the Sunnis who criticize Shiahs for mut`ah.

1. Did you know that many Sahaba and early scholars believed that it was permissible, and did it, (after the Prophet (pbuh) allegedly banned it)? The most famous case being Ibn Abbas.

So, if you says mut`ah is zina, then you're basically insulting the Sahaba plus Sunni scholars.

Furthermore, I would like to share a particularly interesting case for this. There was a very highly praised Sunni scholar who lived around a century after Rasul Allah (pbuh). His name is Abdul-Malik Ibn Abdul-Aziz Ibn Jurayj. He is an Imam, Hafidh, and Allamah. Al-Dhahabi, writes the following in Siyaru Alam Al-Nubalah:

كان إبن جريج يرى المتعة ، تزوج بستين إمرأة

Ibn Jurayj believed in mutah, and he married sixty women

And this:

إستمتع إبن جريج بتسعين إمرأة

He did mutah with 90 women

Would you dare insult him by calling mutah a zinah or prostitution?

Wasallam

O Kaafir, we say "Ibn Jurayj (Rahimahullaah)", we do not say "Ibn Jurayj (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam", so do not try to awe us with the likes of Ibn Jurayj.

[Jinn]

I have a question here for the Sunnis who criticize Shiahs for mut`ah.

1. Did you know that many Sahaba and early scholars believed that it was permissible, and did it, (after the Prophet (pbuh) allegedly banned it)? The most famous case being Ibn Abbas.

So, if you says mut`ah is zina, then you're basically insulting the Sahaba plus Sunni scholars.

Furthermore, I would like to share a particularly interesting case for this. There was a very highly praised Sunni scholar who lived around a century after Rasul Allah (pbuh). His name is Abdul-Malik Ibn Abdul-Aziz Ibn Jurayj. He is an Imam, Hafidh, and Allamah. Al-Dhahabi, writes the following in Siyaru Alam Al-Nubalah:

كان إبن جريج يرى المتعة ، تزوج بستين إمرأة

Ibn Jurayj believed in mutah, and he married sixty women

And this:

إستمتع إبن جريج بتسعين إمرأة

He did mutah with 90 women

Would you dare insult him by calling mutah a zinah or prostitution?

Wasallam

Be quiet, were aware that Mutah was permissible in the start but later was forbidden. So was alcohol, do we still drink alcohol ? No we don't.

Your logic is therefore wrong.

p.s this thread has refuted your allegation countless number of times so try reading it, before you try to make out that prostitution is legal.

A question for you since you lot consider mutah as ibadah, Would you let your mother, sister, daughter participate in mutah ?

[Jinn]

Lanatullah ya khabees, read this :



At the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (Mut'ah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses. (Bukhari, Muslim, Masnad Ahmed, Nisai, Tirmizi, Ibn-e-Majah)

"In the year of Autas, ALLAH's Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but He prohibited it afterwards". (Sahih Muslim)

Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmizi]

"I permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but (as of now) ALLAH is prohibiting you from engaging in it till the day of Resurrection. So if anyone has a woman by temporary marriage, he should let her go; and do not take back any of your gifts from them". (Muslim, Abu Daoud, Nisai, Ibn-e-Majah)


But this is what Shias believe :astagh:

SHIA HUJJAH: "One who performs Mut'ah (temporary marriage) once will attain the rank of Imam Hussain, one who performs it twice will attain the rank of Imam Hassan, one who performs it thrice will attain the rank of Imam Ali and one who performs it four times will attain my rank". (Tafseer Mihaj-ul-Siddiqeen, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 356)

[Majlisi]

O Kaafir, we say "Ibn Jurayj (Rahimahullaah)", we do not say "Ibn Jurayj (Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam", so do not try to awe us with the likes of Ibn Jurayj.

This post has demonstrated how ignorant you are. I'm assuming that you are trying to imply that he isn't infallible because you guys don't say "Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam", right? So you're basically saying that "Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam" is only meant for infallibles, right? Well, actually, it is permissible to say this to a non-infallible, in Sunni fiqh.

And you have completely avoided my point. Read it again, and maybe you will understand, if you still can't understad, which is likely, then read again and again until you understand, okay?


Be quiet, were aware that Mutah was permissible in the start but later was forbidden. So was alcohol, do we still drink alcohol ? No we don't.

Your logic is therefore wrong.

p.s this thread has refuted your allegation countless number of times so try reading it, before you try to make out that prostitution is legal.

A question for you since you lot consider mutah as ibadah, Would you let your mother, sister, daughter participate in mutah ?


Well, first of all, the alcohol argument is not going to work against the Shiah, because we believe that it was impermissible from the very start of Islam, we do not believe it was gradually banned like Sunnis do.

What exactly is my allegation you are thinking of? I just pointed out that extremely respected Sunnis believed in the permissibility of mut`ah even up to a CENTURY after the Prophet's time. Show me these supposed refutations.

Yes, I would not mind if my female relatives practiced it, as long as they followed the Shiah Shariah, and did mut`ah with a decent, respectable, religious man.

Now, my question for you, since Al-Nikah Bi Nyyat At-Talaq is allowed in Sunni fiqh, would you let your mother, sister, daughter participate in it?



Lanatullah ya khabees, read this :



At the battle of Khaibar, the Prophet forbade the temporary marriage (Mut'ah) of women, and the eating of the flesh of domestic asses. (Bukhari, Muslim, Masnad Ahmed, Nisai, Tirmizi, Ibn-e-Majah)

"In the year of Autas, ALLAH's Messenger permitted a temporary marriage for three nights, but He prohibited it afterwards". (Sahih Muslim)

Abdullah Ibn 'Abbas (r.a.) said: "Temporary marriage was at the beginning of Islam. A man comes by a town where he has no acquaintances, so he marries for a fixed time depending on his stay in the town, the woman looks after his provisions and prepares his food, until the verse was revealed: "Except to your wives or what your right hands possess." Ibn 'Abbas explained that any relationship beyond this is forbidden. [narrated by Tirmizi]

"I permitted you the temporary marriage of women, but (as of now) ALLAH is prohibiting you from engaging in it till the day of Resurrection. So if anyone has a woman by temporary marriage, he should let her go; and do not take back any of your gifts from them". (Muslim, Abu Daoud, Nisai, Ibn-e-Majah)


But this is what Shias believe :astagh:

SHIA HUJJAH: "One who performs Mut'ah (temporary marriage) once will attain the rank of Imam Hussain, one who performs it twice will attain the rank of Imam Hassan, one who performs it thrice will attain the rank of Imam Ali and one who performs it four times will attain my rank". (Tafseer Mihaj-ul-Siddiqeen, Vol. No. 1, Page No. 356)

*Yawns* Posting the same thing over and over again. I wonder why these hadiths didn't stop Ibn Jurayj from doing mut`ah with 90 women. Do you know why?

I challenge you to show me that 'shia hujjah' in Arabic, no doubt it is a fabricated hadith.

On a side not: I must say that this forum is very nice and welcoming, I just joined and I've been declared a kaffir and have been cursed, lol, though, it's not like I expected anyone to show some respect for me in the first place... *sigh*


Hah, good'un.

They always dodged that question, I asked the earlier Shia loser the same question and he kept on ignoring me.

Majlisi, if they do then send their details my way, I got some bredrins I can hook them up with. Naw' mean. ;)

It's amazing to what lengths they go to justify the legality of Mutah like they go with to prove Ali (RA) was destined to be the first divinely appointed Imam. They're justifying it's halal to be slags providing they have mutual consent between them and their sexual f-buddy. I know Shias who do the whole f-buddy thing especially students at University who are studying here from Iran, LOL.

Isn't it hypocritical of you for accusing others of dodging questions, when you just dodged my question? Go one, answer me, why did Ibn Jurayj, who lived a century after Rasul Allah (pbuh), do mut`ah with 90 women, when mut`ah was supposed to be banned?

[New_Muslim]

This post has demonstrated how ignorant you are. I'm assuming that you are trying to imply that he isn't infallible because you guys don't say "Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam", right? So you're basically saying that "Sallallaahu `Alayhi wa Sallam" is only meant for infallibles, right? Well, actually, it is permissible to say this to a non-infallible, in Sunni fiqh.

And you have completely avoided my point. Read it again, and maybe you will understand, if you still can't understad, which is likely, then read again and again until you understand, okay?




Well, first of all, the alcohol argument is not going to work against the Shiah, because we believe that it was impermissible from the very start of Islam, we do not believe it was gradually banned like Sunnis do.

What exactly is my allegation you are thinking of? I just pointed out that extremely respected Sunnis believed in the permissibility of mut`ah even up to a CENTURY after the Prophet's time. Show me these supposed refutations.

Yes, I would not mind if my female relatives practiced it, as long as they followed the Shiah Shariah, and did mut`ah with a decent, respectable, religious man.

Now, my question for you, since Al-Nikah Bi Nyyat At-Talaq is allowed in Sunni fiqh, would you let your mother, sister, daughter participate in it?




*Yawns* Posting the same thing over and over again. I wonder why these hadiths didn't stop Ibn Jurayj from doing mut`ah with 90 women. Do you know why?

I challenge you to show me that 'shia hujjah' in Arabic, no doubt it is a fabricated hadith.

On a side not: I must say that this forum is very nice and welcoming, I just joined and I've been declared a kaffir and have been cursed, lol, though, it's not like I expected anyone to show some respect for me in the first place... *sigh*



Isn't it hypocritical of you for accusing others of dodging questions, when you just dodged my question? Go one, answer me, why did Ibn Jurayj, who lived a century after Rasul Allah (pbuh), do mut`ah with 90 women, when mut`ah was supposed to be banned?

You've been declared a Kafir because that's what your cult is saturated with. Beautiful forms of Shirk that would make Shaitan weep to sleep, heh.

Your argument has been refuted time and time again. We're bored and can't be bothered. Read through the thread as Brother Jinn advised you to and perhaps you will the answer you are seeking. Every Rafidhi slime that has challenged us here has been refuted, defeated and disposed of like a whore. That which the majority of your women-folk are. :)

However, if you're willing to answer my question first then I'll considering answering yours. Otherwise if you and your microscope turnip are that keen to justify that prostitution or using the Mutah system to exploit women to rock n' roll when they haven't made a life long commitment is permissible then you my malevolent pr1ck have the mind-set of a p1mp.

[New_Muslim]

Majlisi, if you have the balls sign up to Islamic-Forum.net - it's a site dedicated to Shia/Sunni debates.

It'll be much more entertaining there.

[TripolySunni]

@Majlisi,

Question:

First of all site your source for the ibn Jurayj issue, secondly answer this:

Is your problem that ibn Jurayj thought it was Halal, or did he practice it knowing that it was Haram?

[TripolySunni]

Al-Nikah Bi Nyyat At-Talaq

There is a difference of opinion on this.

[New_Muslim]

Yes, I would not mind if my female relatives practiced it, as long as they followed the Shiah Shariah, and did mut`ah with a decent, respectable, religious man.

Now, my question for you, since Al-Nikah Bi Nyyat At-Talaq is allowed in Sunni fiqh, would you let your mother, sister, daughter participate in it?




*Yawns* Posting the same thing over and over again. I wonder why these hadiths didn't stop Ibn Jurayj from doing mut`ah with 90 women. Do you know why?

I challenge you to show me that 'shia hujjah' in Arabic, no doubt it is a fabricated hadith.

On a side not: I must say that this forum is very nice and welcoming, I just joined and I've been declared a kaffir and have been cursed, lol, though, it's not like I expected anyone to show some respect for me in the first place... *sigh

Then why did you bother coming here if you knew you were going to be spoken to be like a piece of trash, which is what you and Shi1tism is all about?

Let me re-phrase the question so it really hits you. Scenario:

- Your sister has to be wait to get married until she finishes her studies, but in the mean time wants her sexually impulses to be addressed so to speak, so decides to do Mutah with two Shia dudes in order to arouse one another. She makes a shift plan, I'll enter the dome of Shia brother A from Mon-Fri from 10-1am and Shia brother 2 during weekends whenever he is available.

- They mutually agree two months and no more

- They smile at each other at the end and walk their separate ways and no doubt will linger in thought before going to sleep of the memories and moments they shared

This halal in the Shia Shariah, right?

[New_Muslim]

If you're so bored, and can't be bothered answering on this thread (not that you'd have anything of substance to say in the first place anyway, just a binch of complaints), then why have you been posting on this thread for months? My oh my, you're a strange one aren't you?

If my argument has been refuted time and time again, then why is it such a trouble for you to post it? Go on.........

I even doubt anyone has brought up Ibn Jurayj in this thread, so answer my question, why did Ibn Jurayj believe in mut`ah even a century after mut`ah was supposed to be banned? Furthermore, all the garbage you wrote in the third paragraph, do you apply it to Ibn Jurayj as well?

I enjoy making a mockery out of your cult and those who follow it with such pride.

Use the Search option you slag.

All that garbage applies to every Shia male or female who apply Mutah in that fashion.

[TripolySunni]

btw just as an addition, ibn Jurayj is an Umayyad, he is from bani Umayyah, so it's funny how the SHia in this thread are saying Mu`awiyah (ra) and ibn Jurayj (rah) are doing it, they seem to agree with Ahlul-Bayt Haha...
Also ibn `Abbas (ra) who was famous for his view was in Makkah this is why his Fatwa was taken by some of the Mekkans. al-Imam al-Ouza`ee said there are two wrong Fatwas that have spread in each region, he says:


أبا عمرو الأوزاعي يقول لا نأخذ من قول أهل العراق خصلتين ومن قول أهل مكة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل المدينة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل الشام خصلتين فأما أهل العراق فتأخير السحور وشرب النبيذ وأما أهل مكة فالمتعة والصرف وأما أهل المدينة فإتيان النساء في أدبارهن والسماع وأما أهل الشام فبيع العصير وأخذ الديوان


[We do not take two matters from the people of `Iraq, and two matters from the people of Makkah, and two matters from the people of Madinah, and two matters from the people of Sham. As for the `Iraqis it is delaying Suhour and drinking wine, as for the Mekkans it is al-Mut`ah and al-Sarf, ect...]

This means that some wrong Fatwas were spread in each area, this is why they were rejected.

[Majlisi]

It's interesting that my post was deleted, I wonder why...

Tripoly:

For a reference: Just type in Ibn Jurayj in Arabic and search his biography in Al-Dhahabi's Siyar Alam al-Nubala, and you'll find that he is mentioned to have this believ. (I can't post links for now)


There is a difference of opinion on this.

So what? As long as there are a good amount of scholars who deem it permissible, then I can still use this.



Then why did you bother coming here if you knew you were going to be spoken to be like a piece of trash, which is what you and Shi1tism is all about?

Let me re-phrase the question so it really hits you. Scenario:

- Your sister has to be wait to get married until she finishes her studies, but in the mean time wants her sexually impulses to be addressed so to speak, so decides to do Mutah with two Shia dudes in order to arouse one another. She makes a shift plan, I'll enter the dome of Shia brother A from Mon-Fri from 10-1am and Shia brother 2 during weekends whenever he is available.

- They mutually agree two months and no more

- They smile at each other at the end and walk their separate ways and no doubt will linger in thought before going to sleep of the memories and moments they shared

This halal in the Shia Shariah, right?

Because I wanted to debate here, not make friends.

That is not permissible in Shi`ah fiqh, because a woman needs to observe `iddah (around 3 or so months) when a mut`ah is done. Seriously dude, someone who doesn't even know about a simple Shi`ah fiqh ruling like `iddah should not be debating. You are too ignorant, go and study some more, by the way, how old are you, you sound like a kid? I'm only 17 btw.



I enjoy making a mockery out of your cult and those who follow it with such pride.

Use the Search option you slag.

All that garbage applies to every Shia male or female who apply Mutah in that fashion.


You're still dodging. Why won't you answer me?


btw just as an addition, ibn Jurayj is an Umayyad, he is from bani Umayyah, so it's funny how the SHia in this thread are saying Mu`awiyah (ra) and ibn Jurayj (rah) are doing it, they seem to agree with Ahlul-Bayt Haha...
Also ibn `Abbas (ra) who was famous for his view was in Makkah this is why his Fatwa was taken by some of the Mekkans. al-Imam al-Ouza`ee said there are two wrong Fatwas that have spread in each region, he says:


أبا عمرو الأوزاعي يقول لا نأخذ من قول أهل العراق خصلتين ومن قول أهل مكة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل المدينة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل الشام خصلتين فأما أهل العراق فتأخير السحور وشرب النبيذ وأما أهل مكة فالمتعة والصرف وأما أهل المدينة فإتيان النساء في أدبارهن والسماع وأما أهل الشام فبيع العصير وأخذ الديوان


[We do not take two matters from the people of `Iraq, and two matters from the people of Makkah, and two matters from the people of Madinah, and two matters from the people of Sham. As for the `Iraqis it is delaying Suhour and drinking wine, as for the Mekkans it is al-Mut`ah and al-Sarf, ect...]

This means that some wrong Fatwas were spread in each area, this is why they were rejected.

That may put weaken my first point, but other than that, it isn't really relevant.

[TripolySunni]

It's interesting that my post was deleted, I wonder why...

Tripoly:

Go read just type in Ibn Jurayj in Arabic and search his biography in Al-Dhahabi's Siyar Alam al-Nubala, (I can't post links for now)

He has chains doesn't he? authenticate those chains is all I ask. Then after you authenticate them, use it as an argument.

So what? As long as there are a good amount of scholars who deem it permissible, then I can still use this.

As long as there's a good number of scholars who deem it impermissible, it isn't a Hujjah upon me, since I hold the other opinion :)
Is there a disagreement of opinion on Mut`ah in your sect?


My reply is in bold.

[Qarnayn]

I've being reading your posts and i sincerely hope that Allah subhana wa ta'ala enables you to find the truth and gives you the opportunity of redemption because you are seriously misguided. I have tried to think of why anyone with sense would go as low to follow that cult but so far i don't even have 1 item on that list. You are blinded by your ignorance, perhaps try opening your eyes, unblocking your ears and actually using them.