Talk:Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain

Hamid-Masri's critique
This article fails to make enough stress at the following possibility: The verse that Imran bin Hussein was talking about was this: whoever profits by combining the visit with the pilgrimage (should take) what offering is easy to obtain (Al-Baqara 196, trans. M.H Shakir). Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in his Fath al-Bari that the man who forbade this kind of Mut'ah, was Umar. But to combine the Umrah with the Hajj was called the Mut'ah of Hajj, and this was also prohibited by Umar. So there is a posibility that this hadith is actually about the Mut'ah of the pilgramage, not about the Mut'ah of marriage. This was the view of following muslim scholars: This last Hadith proves that Tamattu` is legislated. It is reported in the Two Sahihs that `Imran bin Husayn said, "We performed Hajj At-Tamattu` in the lifetime of Allah's Messenger and then the Qur'an was revealed (regarding Hajj At-Tamattu`). Nothing was revealed to forbid it, nor did he (the Prophet ) forbid it until he died. And somebody said what he wished (regarding Hajj At-Tamattu`) according to his own opinion.'' (Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim by Ibn Kathir, commentary of verse 2:196) -- This is what i have so far. I could expand the list, but i am in lack of time. If the list is not sufficent, then i'll expand it. Let me know how you feel about my requests. Hamid-Masri 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Ibn Kathir, who wrote in his Tafsir:
 * 1) Muhammad Mohsin Khan, who translated the term "Mut'ah" in the mentioned hadith into "Tamattu' al-Hajj". The way it was mentioned by the article, it seems like Muhammad Mohsin Khan was doing a mere manipulation with the hadith in translating it the following way. This is clearly not the case. Along with many other Sunni scholars, M.M. Khan just held the opinion that the verse mentioned was the verse of the Mut'ah of Hajj.
 * 2) Muslim Ibn Hajjaj, the author of Sahih Muslim, who did include this narration under his Kitab al-Hajj, not in his Kitab al-Nikah.
 * 3) Abdul Hamid Siddiqui, the one who translated Sahih Muslim into english, since he viewed Mut'ah in this case as being The Mut'ah of Hajj.
 * 4) Imam Bukhari, who also included this hadith in the Kitab of Hajj.
 * 5) Ibn al-Jawzi, who said in his book Kashf al-Mushkil min hadith al-Saheeh (p.449) that the verse of Mut'ah in this narration is Al-Baqara:196.
 * 6) Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Fath al-Bari, where he says that the verse of Mut'ah is Al-Baqara:196
 * 7) Al-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim, whewre he says that all the hadith about the Tamattu' is about the Mut'ah of Hajj.
 * O, and by the way, i am very disappointed at this: The article states that the original arabic word of the Hadith attributed to Mutarrif was "Mut'ah", and that AbdulHamid Siddiqui translated it into "comdining Hajj and Umrah". This is not the case. Here is the arabic wording: "وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَدْ جَمَعَ بَيْنَ حَجٍّ وَعُمْرَة" "And know that the Prophet of Allah, Peace be upon him, used to combine (jama3a) Hajj and Umrah. This is the wording of the Hadith, not something that Abdul-Hamid siddiqui invented. The word Mut'ah is'nt even mentioned in this sentence. Hamid-Masri 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Answer
Please don't be offended, since i only created the article based on the sources available to me. If you have other sources that make other interpretations, than of course should those be included, and in case you view my interpretation of my sources as flawed, then i am open to be corrected. Now, to the issue:

As i have understood it, this is a hadith, and a hadith exists independent of whatever collection it might have existed in, thus the interpretation of those including the hadith in their collection is not objectively relevant to the hadith itself. With that, i mean that it is true that Bukhari and Muslim included it in their chapter of hajj,a fact represented by "In Sahih Muslim, it is included among the chapters of the Hajj related subjects." in the "Sunni view" of the article, however, this can not be raised to be an objective part of the hadith, it is a Sunni-subjective interpretation, in the same sense that the Shi'a have their own subjective interpretation. Thus, the placement of the hadith in the collection can not be raised as an argument for the meaning "Mutah" to be change to one of its two more specific meanings, in the same way that the Shi'a view can not be used to change it to one of it's specific meanings.

Regarding your points: 1a: this makes it clear that Ibn Kathir had the Sunni view, assuming that the translation is correct and Ibn Kathir indeed wrote "Hajj At-Tamattu`" and not "mutah" in his original arabic writing, e.g. that the Arabic-English translator did not take the same freedom of translation as Muhammad Mohsin Khan did. 1b: The article states that "Shi'a also complain about the Sunni translators mistranslating the Arabic word "Mut'ah" that appears in the original text into english variations that make impossible the Shi'a interpretation of the text.", and this is an objective true statement. It does not state that Sunni translator made an incorrect translations, only that the Shi'a view it as such, something that is sourced in both the AA article and the Al-Islam.org article. Also notice that the text does not even claim that the Shi'a accuse the translator of bad faith. It is true that this can be taken to imply that the translator did something in bad faith, but removing the Shi'a position out of the article, while it has been included in both their large internet sources would be an omittal of notable and relevant information. 2: True, and as i said above, this is notable and is presented in the "sunni view" part of the article. 3: Same answer as given for Muhammad Mohsin Khan's translation. 4: Same answer as given for Muslim's decision of section. 5: A notable and relevant Sunni view that should be included in the article, in fact, ill included right away. 6: Same as above 7: Same as above

Hmm... i looked further and it looks like i made a mistake in writing that, the two Shi'a online articles only mention that Muhsin Khan changed the wording and do not mention Siddiqui. I conclude that while i wrote the article, my memory failed me and i thus wrote the unsourced statement. I trust that your original arabic is accurate and will thus remove the statement about siddiqui. Thanks for correcting me.

I will make adjustments to the article, i look forward to your response. Again, sorry for my mistake, it was not in bad faith. --Striver - talk 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, i have made several changes and additions to the article, i hope we are closer to an agreed version. Peace. --Striver - talk 13:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My adjustments
Okay, i have first of all, made som minor adjustments. For example, Imam al-Nawawi does not say that ALL hadith regarding Mut'ah in general is about the Mut'ah of Hajj (that was my mistake, sorry), instead, all the narrations in this bab is about the Mut'ah of Hajj. I will adjust this, and make a few other minor additions to the article. Later on, i will respond to your arguments. Let me know how you feel witht he edits i performed. Thank you for participating here. Hamid-Masri 10:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamid-Masri's response to Striver's answer
I agree in most of what you are saying. I however disagree with you regarding my point 1a. You say that this indicates that Ibn Kathir held the view that is was about the Mut'ah of Hajj provided that he really did wrote Hajj al-Tamatu' and not just Mut'ah. I disagree. After all, Ibn Kathir attributed the hadith to Al-Baqara:196 and not Al-Nisa:24, clearly indicating which Mut'ah he meant. However, to make sure that none of your points is being missed here, i will cite the arabic version of the Hadith cited in Ibn Kathir's tafsir: " نزلت آية المتعة في كتاب الله، وفعلناها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم لم ينزل قرآن يحرمها، ولم ينه عنها، حتى مات، قال رجل برأيه ما شاء ". This hadith is the same as in Bukhari's Kitab Tafsir al-Qur'an, in which the word "Mut'ah" is used by itself. However Ibn Kathir still used it as a proof for Mut'ah al-Hajj being permissible. To emphasize my point: Ibn Kathir was clearly talking about the Mut'ah of Hajj, which is mentioned in the Ayah that he is commenting. Then he argues that you can give your Hady by sacrificing a sheep or a cow, because the Prophet did that, while his wives were "tamattu3" i.e. performing Mut'ah. It does not take much to realize which kind of Mut'ah this is (no offence). He then argues for the permissibility of this kind of Mut'ah by saying: "هذا دليل على مشروعية التمتع" "This (hadith) proves the persissibility of the Tamatu3", and then he cites the narration of Imran ibn Husayn. And the above is my arguments regarding point 1a. Following is my suggestments for expanding the article: Maybe we should create a subsection to the "Narration"-section, in which we display the disagreements between muslim scholars about what "The Verse of Mut'ah" in this narration is referring to. Bless Hamid-Masri 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think i basically understand and agree with you regarding Ibn Kathir's intentions. Yes, maybe a sub-section dedicated focusing on the different views regarding what verse is alluded to might be appropriate, but may i suggest that we do that in the existing and relatively short "Muslim view" section? I'm really glad that we can edit such a controversial topic without the typical problems. --Striver - talk 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, brother. Very well, we can do that in the Muslim View section. My only question would then be: Should we then create a sub-section regarding this subject in order to make it easier to navigate around in the article? I think it is better that you decide that, since i am still relatively new here at wikipedia. When you have decided that, feel free to go ahead and make the relevant edits, because i might be away for a few days. If you would trust me to do it, then please provide me with something so that i can familiarize myself more with the Shia view. That would be good for me to read before i start writing. And the same for you, brother, it is always a pleasure. Hamid-Masri 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, truth be told, i have always tried to follow the this formula: Add things that all Muslims agree on in the "Muslim view", and then add differing view on the "shi'a view"/"sunni view" section. I do understand the intention of adding the rational of referring to each verse, and adding this to a prominent place of the article, considering the weight of the issue, and the most prominent and natural place for that would be in the beginning of the "views" section, that is the "Muslim view".


 * However, this creates the problem that Shi'a and Sunni refer to different verses, and this would required a lengthy explanation of the differing views, and i personally view it as better to just have each view in the appropriate sub-section. My humble suggestion is that you add what you know in a prominent place of the Sunni view, and then we can add the equivalent in the Shi'a view, when time and opportunity is available. However, you are free to choose some other solution, i don't find this esthetical issue important enough to argue about. So, be my guest and give it a shot :)--Striver - talk 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamid-Masri's edits
So i have performed the edits we discussed earlier. Please let me know what you think. Hamid-Masri 14:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * generally, your edits are good. Just one thing: "some sunnis agree that the verse refers to the temporary marriage, but disagree that the verse permits it." is not entirely accurate, as i have understood it that the majority of the sunnis view that verse permits Nikah Mut'ah, but that the Sunnah abrogated the Qura'an. Shi'a do not view that the Sunnah can abrogate the Qur'an. Otherwise, good edit. Comments? --Striver - talk 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. What you are citing is a common misconception, as far as i am concerned. One have to realize that not all sunnis agree on everything. It is correct that some sunni mufasirin held the view that teh verse permits the Mut'ah, but this is not the case for all sunni scholars. For example, I have cited following from the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

Mujahid stated that,

﴿فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَـَاتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً﴾

(So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) was revealed about the Mut`ah marriage. A Mut`ah marriage is a marriage that ends upon a predeterminied date. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that the Leader of the Faithful `Ali bin Abi Talib said, "The Messenger of Allah prohibited Mut`ah marriage and eating the meat of domesticated donkeys on the day of Khaybar (battle).'' In addition, in his Sahih, Muslim recorded that Ar-Rabi` bin Sabrah bin Ma`bad Al-Juhani said that his father said that he accompanied the Messenger of Allah during the conquest of Makkah, and that the Prophet said,

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي كُنْتُ أَذِنْتُ لَكُمْ فِي الاسْتِمْتَاعِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ، وَإنَّ اللهَ قَدْ حَرَّمَ ذَلِكَ إِلى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ، فَمَنْ كَانَ عِنَدَهُ مِنْهُنَّ شَيْءٌ فَلْيُخَلِّ سَبِيلَهُ، وَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شيئًا»

(O people! I allowed you the Mut`ah marriage with women before. Now, Allah has prohibited it until the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them.) Allah's statement,

﴿وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ﴾

(but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you.) is similar to His other statement,

﴿وَءَاتُواْ النِّسَآءَ صَدُقَـتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً﴾

(And give to the women their dowry with a good heart). The meaning of these Ayat is: If you have stipulated a dowry for her, and she later forfeits it, either totally or partially, then this bears no harm on you or her in this case. Ibn Jarir said, "Al-Hadrami said that some men would designate a certain dowry, but then fall into financial difficulties. Therefore, Allah said that there is no harm on you, O people, concerning your mutual agreement after the requirement (has been determined).'' meaning, if she gives up part of the dowry, then you men are allowed to accept that.. Tafsir al-Jalalayn does not even mention The Mut'ah in the commentary on verse 4:24. And so on... However, you are right that i failed to mention a third and minor sunni opinion: That the Sunnah abrogated the Qur'an at this point. I am in a hurry, so this came out fast. I hope you understand me. Hamid-Masri 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now when i have more time, i can also inform you of the following: The Tanwir al-Miqbas says

(Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned) as unlawful, (so that ye seek them) marry (with your wealth) up to four wives; it is also said that this means: so that you buy with your wealth captives; and it is also said that this means: so that you should seek with your money marrying women for an agreed period of time (zawaj al-mut'ah) but the lawfulness of this practice was later abrogated, (in honest wedlock) Here, the Mufassir mentions 3 possibilities of the meaning, without judging which is right or which is wrong. A clear indication that more than one opinion exists inside the fold of Sunni Islam. I can provide you with more examples if you want. Hamid-Masri 19:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above cited Ibn Kathir, am i right when i understand you as citing it as an example of those deeming it to be made permissible by the Qur'an, but made haram by the Sunnah? Tanwir al-Miqbas is also an interesting source, considering that Ibn Abbas is often included in hadith that argue it's legality, most prominent when Ibn Abbas argued against Ibn Zubair. I have also learned that Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya viewed that the Quran made Mut'ah halal, that Muhammad did NOT prohibit it, but he DID say to follow the "Rashidun", thus was Umar authorized to abrogate it. That one is a rare Sunni view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Striver (talk • contribs) 11:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
 * No. I am citing it as an example of a Sunni scholar recognizing that the verse is ABOUT Mut'ah, but not that it permits Mut'ah, as he connect the phrase So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due with the hadith Therefore, anyone who has any women in Mut`ah, let him let them go, and do not take anything from what you have given them. Another example is that he does not deem the sentence but if you agree mutually (to give more) after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you as an acceptance of the Mut'ah. You are right in your observations about the Tanwir al-Miqbas, but one will have to know that this tafsir book was attributed to Ibn Abbas, not necesarrily written by him. Anyway Tanwir al-Miqbas mentions three posibilities regarding the verse, Mut'ah being one of them. Muhammad Assad and Maudoodi does'nt either mentions Mut'ah in their tafsir of their verses, making it clear that there is a dispute between Sunni scholars at this point. Maybe i should add the references in the article. Hamid-Masri 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So i have cited what i have as references in the article, as well as i performed a minor rewrite of the Muslim View-section. I hope we can agree on this version of the article. However if you disagree with me in any way, then let me know and let us strive to find a solution we can both accept.Hamid-Masri 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Concensus
User Mezzo-Mezzo needs to join the discussion here before adding tags. On Ibn Baz Article he asks people to discuss before edit. Here he edits before discussing. .swapant 3:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a sockpuppet now guilty of trolling and Wikistalking. I would really be careful if I were you. MezzoMezzo 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Qayyim
Since se translation of Ibn Qayyim's word in his book Zad al-Ma'ad is mere AA propaganda, i have deleted the phrase that allegedly says that Ibn Qayyim believe that the Quran permits Mut'ah. Nowhere in his book does he say that. Hamid-Masri (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tafseer Ghareeb al Quran?
What is this book? Several books were called that. Which one of them is being referred too? I would like to look up the passage in the book. 194.239.178.165 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=196&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=41&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=196&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)