Talk:Nikah mut‘ah/Archive 1

NPOV

I have NPOV concerns about this article, although my concerns are not strong enough to enforce the NPOV dispute convention. I am not knowledgeable enough in Islamic law to make a strong case.

However, I have read this article [allaahuakbar.net/shiites/concept_of_muta.htm at allah-u-akbar.net] which raised my concerns. To be fair, this article I read is clearly not NPOV either. I will give this some more attention.Manning 21:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Found another excellent link which seems to be more NPOV. al-islam.org Manning 21:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Im going to warn you from the start: You will NEVER find ANY islamic fiq (jurisprudence) issue that will bring as much emotional baggage as this one: This is the issue where Sunnis aske Shias "can i make Mut'ah with your mom" and such.

--Striver 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis

I've copy-edited and tidied the article, and incorporated non-polemical material from Sunni polemics claiming 24:4 not being about Mut'ah. It needs to be rewitten to be more neutral, but I don't think that that will be a big job. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of copy-editing the article, but I see that some of my edits have been reverted back to poor English; why? Note also that we have to present a neutral point of view; claiming that there was a revelation isn't neutral. Finally, details about when exactly Mohammed is supposed to have announced this or that is unnecessary, and when it's combined with an insistence on using a dating system that few readers will understand, it's better to omit it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keept all you contribution to my grama, but added mot text in my usual bad grama. Im greatfull if you corrected it.

The revelation in the muslim view is not controversial, so it shuold not be included in the.

I will rewrite it so it wont claim the revelation as a fact, the date of revelation is relevant since the controversy is about timing, so all timings need to be presented to give a fair representation of all views. I will also add both datings, since AH is not in sync with CE , so AH cant be omitted without jeopardizing accuracy.

Thanks for sharing your ideas, and peace!

--Striver 23:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear that dates are necessary, especially as they're unclear. The simple claim that one group believe that x happened and another group disagree is surely enough — the dates don't add anything significant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis version

Dear brother in Islam. I would like to start with thanking you for you comments on: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Striver

Now, about your resent changes to my latest version of this article:

Ill go through each of you recent changes to the article

Dates

In your version, you have deleted the following lines:

The event of revelation was during the battle of Hunayn in 9 ah (631 CE), Muslim 3432 .

Sunni believe that Muhammad later abolished this type of marriage at several different large events, the most accepted being at Khaybar in 7 AH (629 CE) and at the Victory of Mecca in 8 AH (630 CE).

Shia believe that Umar ibn al-Khattab abolished it during the third year of his reign, 15 ah (637 CE), 6 year after the revelation of vers 4:24

My arguments

Dates are necessary. Dates are the core of the whole dispute. The whole dispute revolves around when it got supposedly abbolished. Sunni say 7 and 8 ah. Shia say 15 ah. That must be represented, as well as the date for the revelation of vers 4:24, that is the battle of hunayn in 9 ah. Its the core of the whole controversy, it cant be ommited and ther is absolutly nothing uncertain about when the following dates occurred:

Khaybar
Victory of mecca
Battle of Hunayn
Umar's third year.

So i totaly reject the notion of ommiting dates, since in it is the strongest argument Shia's have, and it a high violation of the principal of representeing all parts equaly to ommit Shia's main argument. Shia's main argument on the core issue can not be ommited.

merging sections

You merged my "== Quran ==" and "== controversy ==" into "==Justification & disagreement=="

my arguments:

I simply do not think that is a accurate way of putting things.

There is no controversy or disagreement about whether vers 4:24 is about Nikah Mut'ah or not Shia and Sunni agree on this. Not only does the highly respected Ibn Kathir ref agree that its about Mut'ah, Sahi Muslim Muslim 3432 . confirm it is as well. Some Sunni dont agree anyway, but they are not scholars and not worth be represented in the "== Quran ==" section, they get their say in the "controversy" section

Regarding revelation, Ibn Kathir, Sahi Muslim and shia scolar agree on it.

The controversy is regarding supposed abrogation, and it is not accurate to put both in the same section. It must clearly be shown that there is no scholarly disagreement regarding revelation.

It is in my view, only a diversionary tactic to lump both of them together, aimed at mixing agreements and disagrements serving to diminish the fact that Ibn Kathir and Sahi Muslim and Shias agree regarding its revelation. That is not the way to represent both views equally, since one of the main Shia arguments is the clear cut facts that prominent Sunni do not deny its revelation. To mix the controversy issues in the same section as the agreed upon issues diminishes the effect of the Shia argument. Not to say its inaccurate, since it is two different issues.

deleting the sub headlines

from "Detail of the verse", you deleted the following sub headlines:

fornication
istamtaAAtum
ojoorahunna
after what is appointed

Again, same argument as above, the headlines serve to show that the verse has the same build up as the concept of Nikah Mut'ah, to remove those sub headlines serves to hide that fact.

deleting the example

you deleted the following line:

"For another word with a general meaning and a Islamic term meaning, see Zakat."

That line is important since it is again a Shia argument, that a term must not be confused with its general meaning, and the referens to zakat serve to prove that it is not a unique occurance, rather manny Islamice term as have a dual meaning. To remove that line would be to ommit a Shia argument.

deleting the prostitution issue

You deleted

" a comparison very common in Internet chat communities: Google. This comparison is usually stronger the more they feel avert to Shia's in general, peeking among those who follow the Salafi school of thought"

That again is to omit a Shia argument. No, actually, two.

First of all, it is a real event that Sunnis compare it to prostitution, something the line clearly proves in the google search. That comparison is not only a insult against the Quran, since you are implying that the Quran has prostitution in it, it is also a insult to the Sahaba, The Prophet (as) and ultimately God, since they all were involved. Why do Sunni's do this? To stigmatize the Shia. And as the line says, this practice is more prevelant among the Salafi adherents, they call it opnely for prostitution, while more moderate Sunnis refrain to do that.

That is a Shia argument. It is not proper to ommit that argument.

The second point is to expose their utter hypocrisy as they go on a innovate (bid'ah) their own salafi version of Nikah Mutah, a inferior version, at the same time as the Salafi main moto is "all inovators go to hell".

That is a Shia argument. It is not proper to ommit that argument.

Conclusion

I presented all Shia arguments in a NPOV manner. It makes my angry that some aim to delet the arguments and therefor reject the Shia view to be fully represented in Wikipedia. as i have told earlier, my main goal is to make sure that the Shia view is fully represented, and that is what im doing now. In enetitled and welcomed to do that according to Wikipedia guidelines, as long as i do it in a NPOV manner. I did. I presented the facts as facts and i presented the Shia view in the "Muslims' views of Nikah Mut'ah".

Therefor, im reverting to my last version, and expect my point to be addressed beofr deleting any of the material i have presented or rearranging the sections to diminish the effect of the evidence.

Have a good day and peace, My brother in islam!

(puh!, that was long!)

--Striver 13:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not too bad

This issue is clearly controversial within the wider Islamic world, so I would like to see some acknowledgement of that controversy in the opening paragraph. Apart from that it's not too bad and manages to tread the NPOV line fairly well.Manning 00:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

WHHOOOHHWOO, its not "prolezing biased shia pov bs worth nothing secterian rubish" as the rest of my articles seem to be! YEAYYAEAYEYE!!

So, what do you sugest? I think i got that part covered in the "view" section att the bottom, but...

--Striver 01:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of removals

I removed a couple of items, which I'll italicize:

They further believe that this was known to the Sahaba, but that they where afraid of opposing Umar (Muslim 2828) (Note, the Arabic "Mut'ah" has been mistranslated as "combined Hajj and Umra" (ref).) This is a really weak point considering that the link in question like stated in the article, does not contain anything about Temporary Marriage. This is blamed on the fact that it was a mistranslation of the Saheeh Muslim narration, and what Muslim had intended was that the Mut'a referenced in this case is not about pilgrimmage but about Temporary Marriage. However, if Muslim believed this was about temporary marriage, why would he have put it in the book entitled, The Book of Pilgrimage (Kitab Al-Hajj)?

Secondly, this link http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html#007.2801 does not establish the fact that it was Umar who was first to prohibit Mut'ah.

Salam and thank you for your contributions!

Firstly, it does not matter one bit if the argument is valid or not. Its totaly irrelveant. The only relevant issue is: Du Shia use that argument or not?

Furtheremore, it does not matter where in whitch chapter Muslim decided to put the hadith, for all i care it could be put under "the merits of Yazid".

And then again, the hadith does not say "Mut'ah of hajj", it says "Mut'ah". Sunni belive that Umar only forbade "Mut'ah of hajj" shia belive he also forbade "Nikah Mut'ah", hence the hadith only saying "Mut'ah" covers both things Shia belive Umar did. It is a vile misstranslation to translate "Mut'ah" to "Mut'ah of hajj", therby making it imosible to have the interpretetion that both "Nikah Mut'ah" and "Mut'ah of hajj" are included in that hadith.

Secondly, it does not matter what it establish, that sentence is not used to establish anything, that sentence is used to report the Shia pov.

Ma salam!

--Striver 17:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the point about the Saheeh Muslim hadeeth. The fact that it is in the Pilgrimmage book would make it extremely weird for that hadeeth to be there if the word did not refer to pilgrimmage because why else would it be there? --GNU4Eva 17:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so whe have stoped talking regarding if it should be in the article, and now whe are talking about WHY Shia have that pov? Ok:

It proves nothing more than Muslim belived it belonged ther. If a shia where to put it, he would have put it in the "Umar" book or "the book of both Mut'ah Umar forbade" book.

and, by the way:

And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (Mut'a), I would stone him (to death). [1]

only proves that Umar did not know about this verse:

[24.2] (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Another verse in the list of verses umar did not know. hmm... i wonder if i should make a article about all the verses he violated...

--Striver 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so whe have stoped talking regarding if it should be in the article, and now whe are talking about WHY Shia have that pov? Ok:

No what I'm saying is that it is a dishonest act to claim that it was a mistranslation by a "Saudi" translator to say that it referred to temporary marriage as opposed to pilgrimmage. The argument is that this "Saudi" translator broke the spirit and intention of Muslim's inclusion of the hadeeth when he translated this one word as pilgrimmage, even though a) Shias admit Mut'ah can also refer to pilgrimmage and b) the hadeeth occured in the book about pilgrimmage and c) without this word meaning pilgrimmage this hadeeth woould be completely in the wrong spot in the collection. How about answering those points instead of answering what you want to answer? --GNU4Eva 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It proves nothing more than Muslim belived it belonged ther. If a shia where to put it, he would have put it in the "Umar" book or "the book of both Mut'ah Umar forbade" book.

and, by the way:

And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (Mut'a), I would stone him (to death). [2]

only proves that Umar did not know about this verse:

[24.2] (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

Another verse in the list of verses umar did not know. hmm... i wonder if i should make a article about all the verses he violated...

--Striver 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

or... he looked up at his predecessor, Abu Bakr, who fought a war against those who tried to undermine Islamic teachings (in Abu Bakr's case, the war against those who refused Zakaat). Notice he didn't say anything about it being punishment for fornication... I understand you have a hatred for Umar, but don't let your rage blind you --GNU4Eva 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNU4eva wrote:

No what I'm saying is that it is a dishonest act to claim that it was a mistranslation by a "Saudi" translator to say that it referred to temporary marriage as opposed to pilgrimmage.

I have never made that claim. I have never said that "Mut'ah" should be "Nikah Mut'ah". I said that "Mut'ah" should have been translated to "Mut'ah", and not "Mut'ah of hajj", since "Mut'ah of hajj" makes it impossible to iterpret it as anything else than "Mut'ah of hajj".

To make it easy:

a) "Mut'ah" = "Mut'ah of hajj"

OR

b) "Mut'ah" = "Nikah Mut'ah"

OR

c) "Mut'ah" = "Nikah Mut'ah" AND "Mut'ah of hajj"

See? By translating it though version A, he exludes B and C since:

"Mut'ah of hajj" equals "Mut'ah"

OR

"Mut'ah of hajj" NOT equals "Nikah Mut'ah"

OR

c) "Mut'ah of hajj" NOT equals "Nikah Mut'ah" AND "Mut'ah of hajj"

I repeat, I dont say it sould have been translated to "Nikah Mut'ah", it shoud have remained "Mut'ah". Its stuff like this that took out the name of Muhammad (as) from Bible!

GNU4eva wrote:

The argument is that this "Saudi" translator broke the spirit and intention of Muslim's inclusion of the hadeeth when he translated this one word as pilgrimmage, even though a) Shias admit Mut'ah can also refer to pilgrimmage and b) the hadeeth occured in the book about pilgrimmage and c) without this word meaning pilgrimmage this hadeeth woould be completely in the wrong spot in the collection. How about answering those points instead of answering what you want to answer?

No, i never claimed it broke Muslims intention. I could not care less for muslims intentions in this issue. I claim it brakes the intention of the one narrating the hadith. I claim that the one narrating it meant both forms of Mut'ah, since Umar forbade both forms. As for Muslim puting the hadith in the "hajj" book, that is a desision that i dont put any value in. I actualy agree that the translator followed the path that Muslim intended, Muslim intended to imply that Nikah Mutah was not intended by this hadith, but he could not change the arabic text. But the translator could, and did. So he followed Muslims intention, but whent against the narrators intentions. The narrator could just as well have clarified that he meant one of the hadith, bu he did not. Nothing in the hadith implies that he meant one Mut'ah in exclusion of the other. Acutally, if you read it again:

Mutarrif reported: 'Imran b. Husain sent for me during his illness of which he died, and said: I am narrating to you some ahadith which may benefit you after me. If I live you conceal (the fact that these have been transmitted by me), and if I die, then you narrate them if you like (and these are): I am blessed, and bear in mind that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) combined Hajj and Umra. Then no verse was revealed in regard to it in the Book of Allah (which abrogated it) and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) did not forbid (from doing it). And whatever a person (, Umar) said was out of his personal opinion.

You see?, the poor Sahaba is petrified with fright! He is so fraid that he is only narrating it since he correctly belived he would die any day! Do you really think he was afraid of changing cloth in bettween Umrah and Hajj? Would a simple thing like Mutah of hajj bring such a fright on the poor Sahaba? No, of cource not, he is petrifed of UMAR!

Abu Nadra reported: Ibn'Abbas commanded the performance of Mut'a putting lhram for 'Umra during the months of Dhu'I-Hijja and after completing it. then putting on Ibrim for Hajj), but Ibn Zubair forbade to do it. I made a mention of it to Jabir b. Abdullih and he said: It is through me that this hadith has been circulated. We entered into the state of Ihram as Tamattu' with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). When 'Umar was Installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for His Messenger (may peace be upon him) whatever He liked and as Re liked. And (every command) of the Holy Qur'an has been revealed for every occasion. So accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah has commanded you; and confirm by (proper conditions) the marriage of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (Mut'a), I would stone him (to death). Qatada narrated this hadith with the same chain of transmitters saying: (That 'Umar also said): Separate your Hajj from 'Umra, for that is the most complete Hajj, and complete your Umra.

You see how the treacherous translator did it again?

First he tries to conseal the fact that Ibn Abbas COMMANDED Nikah Mutah!

The treacherous translator changed added this:

putting lhram for 'Umra during the months of Dhu'I-Hijja and after completing it. then putting on Ibrim for Hajj)

Do you see the end? Its a ")". Do you see the "(" ? No, not me either, the treacherous translator not only inserted his own pov in the paranteises, he didnt bother to open the paranteises in the first place!

Then later on, you see that Umar is clearly sayng that Mut'ah was revealed in the Quran!

Now, take a look att this hadith:

Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr delivered an address in Mecca saying: Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas).

Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Muhammad)

Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones.

(ref 1, 2)

Now, did it look like Abbas COMANDED Mutah Nikah, or or Mutah of hajj? Why did the translator insert his pov in a not opened parenteis?

Yes, the translator i a treacherous snake, he imposes his pov, he does not open paranteises in order to give the impresion that its not his personal pov and he changes Mut'ah to Mut'ah of hajj.

Her goes the Shia translation of the hadith:

Abu Nadhra said: Ibn Abbas commanded to do Mut'a while Ibn Zubair forbade to do it. I mentioned this to Jabir Ibn Abdillah and he said: It is through me that this Hadith has been circulated. We did Mut'a (of Hajj and women) at the time of the Messenger of Allah. When Umar was installed as Caliph, he said: Verily Allah made permissible for his Messenger whatever He like and as He liked. And its command was revealed in Quran. Thus accomplish Hajj and Umra for Allah as Allah has commanded you, and confirm (by reverting to permanent marriage) the marriages of those women (with whom you have performed Mut'a). And any person would come to me with a marriage of appointed duration (i.e. Mut'a) I would stone him.

"The Verse of Mut'a was revealed in Allah's Book, so we did it at the time of Allah's Apostle, and nothing was revealed in Quran to make it illegal, nor did the Prophet prohibit it till he died. But a man (who regarded it illegal) expressed what his own mind suggested."

Did you see that ?!

Her is what the tranlator made of that:

I am blessed, and bear in mind that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) combined Hajj and Umra. Then no verse was revealed in regard to it in the Book of Allah (which abrogated it) and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) did not forbid (from doing it). And whatever a person (, Umar) said was out of his personal opinion.

You can see the arabic here: arabic

GNU4eva wrote:

or... he looked up at his predecessor, Abu Bakr, who fought a war against those who tried to undermine Islamic teachings (in Abu Bakr's case, the war against those who refused Zakaat). Notice he didn't say anything about it being punishment for fornication...

undermine Islamic teachings?

Are you talking about the guys that refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr? Could it be since they knew that Ali was the Caliph, since they hear it themself? "whomsoever im mawla over, Ali is mawla"?

Since when does not giving the Zakat to Abu Bakr gets you a death senteance?

Do you give your zakat to Abu Bakr?

Do you think anybody from the Bani Hashim gave their Zakat to Abu Bakr befor the time Ali alledgedly gave his alliagence to Abu Bakr? Why was Ali not given a death senteance?

Book 005, Number 2148: Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent Umar for (collecting) Sadaqa (zakat), and it was said that Ibn Jamil, Khalid b. Walid and 'Abbas the uncle of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), refused (to pay it). Upon this the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Ibn Jamil is taking revenge but for this that he was destitute and Allah made him rich. As regards Khalid, you are unjust to Khalid, for be reserved his armours and weapons for the sake of Allah, and as for 'Abbas, I shall be responsible for it and an equal amount along with it. And he again said: 'Umar, bear this in mind, the uncle of a person is like his father.

Did Ibn Jamil get a death sentence? He actualy refused to pay it altogheter, not just that he did not want to give it to Muhammad!

Why was not Banu Hasim given a death senteance, they did not even give their oath of alligance to Abu bakr, no, in fact they and Zubair OPPOSE THEM

Actually, not even Umar undertod why they deserved the death sentence:

Book 001, Number 0029:

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right.

Abu Hurarira say they become apostates
Umar refutes him and says they belived in Allah
Umar says Muhammad said he would NOT fight anybody that belived in Allah, His (other) affairs rest with Allah!

Abu Bakr justified it by saying: "they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it". NOTE: THEY WITHELD IT, NOT DISSMIED IT AS AN OBLIATION; THEY WHITHHELD IT FROM ABU BAKR!

Abu Bakr says: severed prayer from Zakat. Did you know who REALLY did that?

Volume 1, Book 7, Number 342: Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama: I was with 'Abdullah and Abu Musa; the latter asked the former, "O Abu AbdurRahman! What is your opinion if somebody becomes Junub and no water is available?" 'Abdullah replied, "Do not pray till water is found."

Book 003, Number 0718: Abd al-Rabmin b. Abza narrated It on the authority of his father that a man came to 'Umar and said: I am (at times) affected by seminal emission but find no water. He ('Umar) told him not to say prayer. 'Ammar then said. Do you remember,0 Commander of the Faithful, when I and you were in a military detachment and we had had a seminal emission and did not find water (for taking bath) and you did not say prayer, but as for myself I rolled in dust and said prayer, and (when it was mentioned before) the Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: It was enough for you to strike the ground with your hands and then blow (the dust) and then wipe your face and palms. Umar said: 'Ammar, fear Allah. He said: If you so like, I would not narrate it. A hadith like this has been transmitted with the same chain of transmitters but for the words: 'Umar said: We hold you responsible for what you claim."

If Abu Bakr was alive, would he KILL Umar on that event?

Think about it!

[Shakir 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath-- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.

[Shakir 5:6] O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.

UMAR TOLD PEOPLE TO ABANDON PRAYER!!!

GNU4eva wrote:

I understand you have a hatred for Umar, but don't let your rage blind you.

I understand you have a love for Umar, but don't let your passion blind you.

--Striver 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I was referring to when I talked about the translation issue and that was the website link you kept defending. One last time: To say that the word in question in the hadeeth is with regards to temporary marriage is academic dishonesty and any semi neutral 3rd party observer can clearly see it as such. The link in question is not being truthful when it says it is a mistranslation and AGAIN, to say that it was Umar who forbade temporary marriage is to neglect what Ali said. --GNU4Eva 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, where does it state:

"the word in question in the hadeeth IS with regards to temporary marriage" ?

It says:

"in that link, the Arabic "Mut'ah" has been mistranslated as "combined Hajj and Umra, making imposible the interpretatinon that BOTH forms of Mut'ah are meant(ref). Shia and Suni agree that Umar forbade "Mut'ah of hajj", however, only Shia belive that Umar forbade "Nikah Mut'ah" at the same time."

--Striver 17:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umbra

I would like to say thank you, as a reader, to Striver and everyone else here for all the good work they have put into this article, but could I ask for one small favour - the introduction refers to the "Umbra". The link does not lead to an Islamic or Arabic topic - would someone mind either expanding on what this term means or fixing the link? Thank you in advance. Lao Wai 12:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Ill try to add information about that :)

--Striver 14:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much appreciated. A little thing has also caught my attention. What if someone marries a woman through a Nikah Mut'ah but decides he has made a terrible mistake half way through and wants to divorce his temporary wife early? May he divorce her by talaq or is he forced to wait until the full period is over? The article is a little confusing on that. Of course that leads to the question of whether he is entitled to half his money back but let's leave that aside. Lao Wai 14:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for bringin it to my atteintion, ill add it right away!

--Striver 15:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gren

Peace!

Both your editions where inaccurate, Sunnis do belive that it was revealed in the Quran, Sahih Muslim, History of Tabari and Tafsir Ibn Kathir all testifie to it. Sunni belive it was abrogated during Muhammads (sa) era, so they belive it was haram in the end of Muhammads life.--Striver 09:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I do believe that some Sunni just interpret that verse differently. For instance (most) Qur'an aloners (although they are very minor) do not interpret in favor of Mut'ah... however they don't accept the hadith, etc, for guidance... I am also pretty sure that some Sunnis and others do the same. I will leave it for now, however. I just wanted to point that out. gren グレン 09:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quran aloners not accepting it does have validity, and you will always find some salafi denying anything shia belive in, even if it means going against their own teachings. --Striver 20:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I talked to this former Sunni I met online and he seemed to think it's overwhelmingly predominant view. I'd personally loosen the language so as not to make it seem like "it's the only true Sunni view", however, I suppose it works well enough. gren グレン 00:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this because it states an argument which does not refute the tafsir of the ayah. It completely ignores all implications of the ayat before and after although it seems to take them into consideration. Sunni Scholars, however, say 4:24 does not permit temporarry marriage. The refutation of this is the fact that prior to this Allaah mentions the women whom a man is forbidden to marry, then he mentions what is permissible for him, and He commands the man to give to the woman he marries her mahr.- Shaykh Munnajjid (http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=20738&dgn=4)

Transliterations of Arabic

The transliterations of Arabic used in this article are rather funky (taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/ or a similar source, with the bolded and underlined formatting removed), and are not particularly linguistically appropriate, or consistent with transliterations used elsewhere on Wikipedia. AnonMoos 18:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MSA ones are the ones that are funky. The transliteration systems used herein have been used on other pages and represent a non-English based system (i.e. u with a long mark rather than the Anglicised "oo". em zilch 03:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, i really hate the "funky" transliterations in this aritcle. I created this article witout them, somebody added them and i did not object for months. But i cant stand it any longer, Pleeeasseee, cant we dump it? I dont care how the underlying Arabic is, i is just so damn ugly in my eyes! Pleeeasseee cant we dump it? (please dont take offence, i didnt want to offend anyone, just make my sentiment clear.)--Striver 09:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this issue is over or not. It seems to me that the title should add the definite article (al-), so it should be Nikah al-Mut‘ah. Striver, could you be more specific about the "funky" transliterations? There seems to be a consensus on the MOS to use the grave accent ` instead of the turned comma ‘, so Nikah Mut`ah is an option, but since this is an extremely obscure Arabic word, there is no way you'll be able to argue that there is a primary transliteration with no ~~diacritics~~. diacritics is the wrong terminology, I should have said apostrophe or something. Cuñado

- Talk 03:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cunado, i strongly object that there is any consencus on the issue, just take into accuont the more recent poll on the Islam related MOS on this issue. But i dont have the energy to really debate this due to other issues. Compare this to this. i don't know if its a valid arguement, but it supports my view that "Nikah al-Mut‘ah" is hardly used. Ok, if i try.... I argue that... ill move it to [[3]]. Peace.--Striver 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be included

I need to add Annulment to the links... --Striver 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Ayatullah Kho'i, Al-Masa'il al-Muntakhibah, p. 327 :

The common fatwa about how to recite the seegah (marriage vows) of a temporary marriage uses the word mahr: "Zawajtuka nafsi fi al-mida al-ma'lumah wa 'ala al-mahr al-ma'lum," I marry myself to you in the known time limit and on the known dowry (using the word mahr), whereas the seegah for a permanent marriage is commonly ruled to be "Zawajtuka nafsi 'ala al-sidaq al-ma'lum," I marry myself to you on the known dowry (this time using the word sidaq to refer to the mahr).[4] --Striver 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi writes in Tafsir al-Kabir (Fakhr al-Din), v 3, page 286:

Ibn Abbas was asked: Is Mut'ah fornication or marriage? He answered: Neither the one nor the other. The questioner then asked: Well then, what is it? Ibn Abbas replied: It is Mut'ah, just as God has said. The questioner continued: Is there a waiting period in Mut'ah? He replied: Yes, a menstrual period. He was also asked: Do the husband and wife inherit from each other? He answered: No. [5] --Striver 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he verses about 'iddah are revealed at the very early stage of "Madinian Life". For example the following verse of Surah Baqara: [Yusufali 2:228] Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Now according to the Ijma of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Mut'ah was practised until (at least) the 7th Hijri (victory of Khayber). [6] --Striver 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 12:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles:

And some talk pages:

--Striver 16:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

´This is a POV presentation of some notable and interesting facts. --Striver 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic article titles

I think this article should be moved to an English translation of Nikah Mut'ah since a) naming conventions recommends so and b) this is English wikipedia: people are more likely to search using English wording than the transliteration of the Arabic term. We could always use the Arabic transliteration on the first line and redirect the existing, Arabic title to the English titled article. For the same reasons, a move for Misyar marriage, Nikah Halala, Nikah urfi, and Nikah Ijtimah should also be considered. Stoa 19:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think i support that. What whould you name them all to? --Striver 19:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to invent names for them because there are no English equivalents. Those new coinages are likely to be confusing to English speakers. When things only affect religious communities, it is normal to use on the religious term. We say "Get" not "Jewish Orthodox Religious Divorce" for instance. If people search they will hit a page like Marriage in Islam and follow what they like and get where they need to be. Lao Wai 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to 100% --Striver 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one thing we are forgetting when dealing with the issue of mutah and Sunni Islam is that the hadith favoured by the Shia using our sources are indeed correct, but what we have to realise is that in Sunni Islam all these hadiths have been aborgated this is mentioned many times in Bidyat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd which lists the opinion of the four madhabs. It even quotes the Shia Imam Imam Ja'far said that Muta is Zina in al Bidayat Al Mujtahid.

Imam al-Marghinani stated in his al-Hidaya:

“Temporary [mut`a] marriage is invalid. It is for a woman to say, I will be [f: lit, “enjoy you”] with you for such-and-such time for such-and-such amount of money.”

Imam Kamal ibn al-Humam stated in his commentary on al-Hidaya, Fath al-Qadir:

“The meaning of mut`a marriage is a contract that ends with the ending of the (specified) time.”

Imam al-Marghinani continued:

“(The permissibility of mut`a) was abrogated, as confirmed by the total consensus (ijma`) of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them).

Imam Kamal ibn al-Humam explained:

“As for the evidence for the abrogation itself it is that which Muslim recorded in his Sahih that, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) forbade it on the Day of the Opening (of Makka). And in both the Sahih collections ( Bukhari & Muslim) that, “The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) forbade it on the Day of (the battle of) Khaybar.” This is understood to mean it was abrogated twice…

The prohibition is final, and there is no difference about this between the scholars of the lands, except some Shi`a.” [al-Hidaya with its commentary, Fath al-Qadir, 3: 246 – 247, Dar al-Fikr edition]

in Sahih Muslim, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is recorded to have said, “…Allah has forbidden it [temporary marriage] until the Day of Judgement.” The hadiths about this are many, and well known…

In essence Ibn Abbas - Allah be pleased with him - said the same thing as narrated in Tirmidhi (with a weak chain) but supported by the hadith of Bukhari.

Secondly, as Shaikh Al Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says in his Fath Al Bari, Salama ibn Akawa - Alalh be pelased with him - himself narrated from his father that Muta' was forbidden by the Prophet after he allowed it *three times*:

لكن عند مسلم من طريق أبي العميس عن إياس بن سلمة بن الأكوع عن أبيه قال " رخص رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عام أوطاس في المتعة ثلاثا ثم نهى عنها "

As we can see the word once again used above is "Rukhs" when it came to allowing Muta'.

Shaikh Al Islam then goes on to give his proof of how some of the Companions such as Sayyidina Jabir went back (ruju') on their initial verdict that Muta' was permissible.

Another common tactic by the shia is to use this Quranic verse and its tafsir as proof for muta from Sunni sources. "“So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract, give unto them their appointed wages as a duty…”(Quran 4:24)

and

Al-Tabari mentioned that: Mujahid said: "The phrase ‘So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract [4:24]' means the Temporary Marriage (Nikah al-Mut'a)."

Firstly, even if this was said by Mujahid, it does not negate the fact that the above verse was abrogated. This was narrated by Sayyidina Ibn Abbas when he said:

‏وقال إسحاق بن راهويه : حدثنا روح بن عبادة حدثنا موسى بن عبيدة سمعت محمد بن كعب القرظي يحدث عن ابن عباس قال : " كانت المتعة في أول الإسلام , متعة النساء , فكان الرجل يقدم بسلعته البلد , ليس له من يحفظ عليه شيئه ويضم إليه متاعه , فيتزوج المرأة إلى قدر ما يرى أنه يقضي حاجته , وقد كانت تقرأ { فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى فآتوهن أجورهن } حتى نزلت { حرمت عليكم أمهاتكم } - إلى قوله - { محصنين غير مسافحين } فتركت المتعة وكان الإحصان , إذا شاء طلق , وإذا شاء أمسك , ويتوارثان , وليس لهما من الأمر شيء "

(see Tirmidhi, Ta'liqaat of Ibn Qayyim Jawziyyah)

Secondly, even if Mujahid said this then this is only *one* opinion that has come from him. However I seriously doubt he said this because it is authentically established from him that interpreted the above verse to mean "(proper) Nikah":

حدثني المثنى، قال: ثنا أبو حذيفة، قال: ثنا شبل، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد: { فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ }: النكاح.

Yet there is a narration from Imam Tabari in his tafsir where Mujahid refers to this as "Nikah Muta' ":

حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، عن عيسى، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد: { فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ } قال: يعني نكاح المتعة.

Even if the above is sound then it still does not prove anything since point 1 (regarding the over ruling of this verse) still stands.

Yet it should be noted that Imam Tabari, regarding this verse provides a number of different interpretations. Thus to say that the verse means only "Muta" is dishonest. In the end Imam Tabari gives his verdict that Muta' is impermissible and what has come regarding the fact that it is permissible is not correct and cannot be followed:

وقد دللنا على أن المتعة على غير النكاح الصحيح حرام في غير هذا الموضع من كتبنا بما أغنى عن إعادته في هذا الموضع. وأما رُوي عن أبيّ بن كعب وابن عباس من قراءتهما: «فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعُتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ إلى أجل مسمّى» فقراءة بخلاف ما جاءت به مصاحف المسلمين، وغير جائز لأحد أن يلحق في كتاب الله تعالى شيئاً لم يأت به الخبر القاطع العذر عمن لا يجوّز خلافه.

So even after being aware of the sayings of Mujahid and others, Imam Tabari did not find the evidence to be sound enough to prove the legality of Muta' .

I hope this clears up the issue in regards to Sunni Islam and Mutah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.202.175 (talk • contribs)

Great, now we just need to add it to the articles. --Striver 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verse 4:24 is Not talking about Mutta marraige At all

Dear sir/ Madam

The article that said Mutta mariage ( tempeorary Mariage ) has bases in the Quran is NOT Right

Verse 4:24 is talking about the Exceptional case of muslims men whom have had Previous Sexual intercourse with their Concobines in the past before quranic verse of 4:24 asked them to pay them compensation (something similar to dowries) to give them their dignity back.

The Verse start from 4:23 reason why? because we read that Verse 4:24 START with arabic word 'Wa' means 'And', it means that Verse 4:24 is the extension of verse 4:23.

From Verse 4:23 stated the women whom are Forbiden to Have Nikah (Sexual Relation/ not Just Marriage) with them eg Mother.

verse 4:24 is continuation of Verse 4:23 by Stating the word 'WA' means and the Chaste women are NOT even allowed to sexualy intercoursed.

But reading Further you will Read the word illa Means Except, The one whom you have Had sexual Realtion ship from whom ? yes...Ma mā malakat aymānukum ( Concobines women).

The past Word used is istamtatum Past tense, NOT Tastamtuon means have sexual or when you will have sexual realtion.

It is not "('So with those among them whom you have enjoyed), BUT "('So with those among them whom you have HAD previously enjoyed) pay them compensation. 86.147.252.3 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase that wikapeadia used is 'So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract [4:24].

The phrase “them by Contract” is NOT there in the text.

what it says in Quran Text is To GIVE the compensation ('So for those whom you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them Give them Compensation [4:24].

Notice Also the word used is famā istamtaˤtum closely meaning to english word (Because ) , NOT Aya Kan (whatever) or not endama means whenever.

Verse 4:24 continuation of 4:23 Forbade Muslims Men to Have Sexual Intercourse with Listed women in verse 4:23 , and verse 4:24 continue BUT gave exception to Concubines. And it tells Muslims men whom have had sexual relation with their concubines in the past to pay them back compensation for human dignity OR to marry them which verse 4:25 state with the permission of their family, to put the end of Concubines relationship.

There is Nothing that indicate in verse 4:24 that allowes Temporary marriage,

Great, get your hands on some reliable sources that states that, and add the information to an-Nisa, 24.--Striver 02:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salaam Alaykum Simply read this: [7] Armyrifle 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wa alika Al Salaam

The verse 4:24 is very clear it talks about giving justice to concubine women whom Muslims men DID have sex with them in the PAST , by taking them from concubine status to marital status, and direct their marital spouses to provide dowry for them.

The heart of the debate on this subject of temporary marriage in Islam is all centered around the meaning of the "word آستمتعتم istamtaAAtum ". For anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Arabic language and its grammar would know that it is exclusively refer to something that happened in the past.

If you can show me how the word "آستمتعتم istamtaAAtum " has ever been used " Quran or any other arabic source" in reference to something that happening in the present and or the future I will solemnly concede and consider my view in this subject to be defeated.

Can you do the same ????

go ahead :)

Happy haytham 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Ayatollah vs. Grander Ayatollah

Some of the rules mentioned in the article is according to Ayatollah Sistani, such as:

consent of father
no pernament marriage between muslim and people of the book.

If you go to the website of other marjas you will see there is no consent on this issue. Examples are: Ebrahim Jannati(http://www.jannaati.com/) and Sadeq Rohani (http://www.rohani.ir/). Hence, these "rules" are not universal and is removed.

--Gerash77 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT NUMBER OF SPELLING ERRORS

Sexual "needs"

No one "needs" to have sex in the sense that one needs food and shelter. This "basic human need" nonsense must be sourced and explicit. Also, saying that Catholicism provides no outlet for sexual feelings is strange, as all Catholics can choose between marrying or remaining celibate. Arrow740 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the 'need' bit, perhaps it can be reworded to something about sexual fulfilment being a naturally ocurring and sometimes powerful desire. However catholicism frowned upon sex for pleasure, banned condoms, and consider divorce a sin. So catholic marriage is much more restrictive on sexual pleasures. Aaliyah Stevens 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church puts more restrictions on sexual activities, it is true. I don't think this article is a place for that discussion. It makes little sense to single out Catholicism and not discuss sexual ethics of the other non-Islam religions. If you want to write an article about that why not go to Christian perspectives on sex, that seems to need some work. If you provide sources and expand that article that would be helpful. Arrow740 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fornication section

I removed it due to it being very poorly written and appearing to contain discussion. I saved the text here. I certainly don't have the knowledge to fix it, but I don't think it added much to the article. Possibly someone can save it.翔太^{「Shouta:talk」} 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on prostitution in Qom

This paragraph

In 2001 it was reported that many women earn money in Qom, a center for Shi'a scholarship and pilgrimage, by engaging in temporary marriage with pilgrims and religious scholars, as a thinly veiled form of prostitution. This research resulted in the female reporter being imprisoned for 11 weeks. Camelia E. Fard. Unveiled Threats. Village Voice, 28 March 2001

was removed with the comment: "(first part is questionable Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources, second part belongs in human rights in Iran article.)". I restored the paragraph; here is the rationale:

The Village Voice is a major weekly newspaper, therefore considered a reliable source per policy.
The facts of the article are certainly questionable, but that is no valid reason to delete all references to it.
If a reliable source has questioned the veracity of Fard's article, then that fact should be added to the article. I'm not aware of such a source.
A publicized charge that temporary marriages have been used as a cover for prostitution in a center of Shi'a scholarship and pilgrimage is without question of utmost relevance to the article on temporary marriage.
The fact that the research resulted in imprisonment of the reporter provides necessary context: obviously the authorities consider the matter highly sensitive, information that should not be kept from our readers.

AxelBoldt 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What research would that be? first she admits these prostitutes do not adhere to principals and laws of Nikah Mut‘ah. But then she goes on to say they practice temporary marriage, an obvious contradiction. She implies everything wrong in Iran is because of Islam, as if you can't find these sort of people in New York. A highly POV article by a relatively unknown journalist, whose claims of imprisonment is unverifiable; printed in an U.S. New York free paper. --Gerash 77 21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think reverting the paragraph back and forth is not very productive, so we should probably stop that game.

Whether a journalist is well-known or not is irrelevant for inclusion in Wikipedia; the reputation of the publication is the only criterion. The Village Voice is a well-known publication with editorial oversight and has won numerous awards for its investigative journalism. It is therefore considered a reliable source per policy.
Your other points criticize the piece itself, which is completely out of place here, as it would amount to original research. It is not our job to verify that she was imprisoned; or that her piece contains no contradictions. We assume that the Village Voice editors and fact checkers did that. Notwithstanding this prohibition on original research, let me nevertheless answer your points:
- I can not verify the statement "She implies everything wrong in Iran is because of Islam".
- "as if you can't find these sort of people in New York" I'm not sure if you can find people using temporary marriage as a cover for prostitution, but even if you could: it would still be important to report the presence of this phenomenon in the article on temporary marriage. How could our readers possibly benefit from suppression of this information?
- "first she admits these prostitutes do not adhere to principals and laws of Nikah Mut‘ah. But then she goes on to say they practice temporary marriage" - I think she is very clear that these people misuse temporary marriage as a cover for prostitution.

What I don't understand is how could they 'misuse' Nikah Mut‘ah. Since they adhere to none of its rules, they are not practicing this form of marriage, but are prostitutes. Although prostitution is a sin in Shiism, according to many marjas[8]-67 having sex with one is not that big of a deal. The case reported is a simple john/hooker case, and can't be categorized as NM even if the women claim so. I know its hard for westerners to accept this sort of rulings from religious leaders- and even more interesting Sadeq Rohani--Gerash 77 00:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "claims of imprisonment is unverifiable" - She writes "In a report by the Iranian Islamic Human Rights Commission, my arrest appeared as a two-sentence statement", so with a little research the claim could presumably be verified.

Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question

so this is basically a temporary marriage for sexual reasons? so the couple get together, have a lot of sex, and once they bored, break up? lol.... and this okay by Quran?

convenient... (Sadartha 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)) very convenient, and wrong. Thankfully, only the Shiites practice it, while the other 95% of Muslims understand that there are only subtle differences between mut'ah and prostitution. IF u disagree, I would like some sources stating that a child born out of mut'ah is legitimate.Unflavoured 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on the topic to improve the article--not use the talk page as forum. gren グレン 08:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered a question. Please do not use the talk page to dispense advice, but there, I contradict myself. Tsk tsk.Unflavoured 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]