What is Mutah?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Thanx! does it specifically say can starve?

Well, in Shi'i Islam women have no property rights. This means a woman cannot inherit anything. And husbands are allowed to deprive their women from food and beverage if the woman refuses to have sex with him. And there are many other restriction that are enforced upon women.

[inqilab]

Nice roor this shia religion of pimps and prostitutes, best thing to do is talk about their imamate, that completely proves shias to be mushriks worse then hindus

i will start it off if you want me to

Do not worry about qrr, after she was caught lying her reputation is ruined, girls like her should not be payed attention to. they are just there for entertainment purposes only so the forum does not get boring lol

[شمله ور خراساني]

Nice roor this shia religion of pimps and prostitutes, best thing to do is talk about their imamate, that completely proves shias to be mushriks worse then hindus

i will start it off if you want me to

Do not worry about qrr, after she was caught lying her reputation is ruined, girls like her should not be payed attention to. they are just there for entertainment purposes only so the forum does not get boring lol

There are no Shi'a here. Only Nadir Shah maybe. But he seems to have converted to Marxism.

So refuting Shi'a here is not really necessary.

[inqilab]

Information purposes. People still consider them as our brothers even though Allah says only believers are brothers. Good to have ammo prepared against them.

And there are some shias here

[Khushal Khan Khattak]

People still consider them as our brothers even though Allah says only believers are brothers. Good to have ammo prepared against them.

And there are some shias here

I am opposed to this topic not because of your'e reasons bro but because what do we actually gain from it? Nothing.

the world shall remember as follows: when the world was falling around them, they were discussing the mating rituals of Shias !!!

Does that ^ really make any sense ?? or achieve anything??

[inqilab]

The shias are part of the enemy forces who are attacking our deen. They are the ones who helped the colonialists in our lands. They helped nato/america invade afghanistan and iraq.

If we do not even know our enemy, there will be nothing to improve on.

[inqilab]

There is even a video where the shias in iran admit they helpef america invade afghanistan and iraq lol mutakhasis has it probably

[Abu Hurayrah]

Qrratugai & Nadir Khan

We need to understand that Shiites have reasons -- perfectly legitimate so -- for every single one of their arguments. Just becuase they don't make sense to us and just because they are "wrong" in our opinion doesn't mean they're really wrong.

Bismillah

Which reasons? The ONLY reason for Mu’tah was for the mujahidin , when they where away for a great while. Mu’tah is forbidden by Muhammad s.a.w. himself on the day of Khaybar and there is no dispute among the people of knowledge that it IS forbidden.

Asnaad:

Malik's Muwatta, Book 28, Hadith 41

Abu Dawud, Book 011, Hadith 2068

Sahih Muslim, Book 07, Hadith 2874
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3249
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3251
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3252
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3253
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3257
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3258
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3259
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3260
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3261
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3255
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3262
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3263
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3264
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3265
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3266
Sahih Muslim, Book 08, Hadith 3267
Sahih Muslim, Book 21, Hadith 4763

Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 050
Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 62, Hadith 052
Sahih Bukhari, Vol 9, Book 86, Hadith 091
Sahih Bukhari, Vol 7, Book 67, Hadith 432
Sahih Bukhari, Vol 5, Book 59, Hadith 527


With all respect, but it is very rude for a person with a lack of knowledge to make baseless comments, not only about these masa’il, but also on the Sahaba like Umar ibn Khattab (r.a). You are making great assumptions, and Grave mistakes by making of yourself a mufassir of the Qur’aan.

I will give you some indications of your ridiculous claims.

Anyway, I find it helpful to quote the Quran here. Verse 4:24 reads:

"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise."

Shiite Muslims use this verse in justification of mut'ah, and the term mut'ah actually appears in this verse. (If you must know, the above verse doesn't use the term of "marriage" (or other verses that have appeared in the Quran to mean marriage) when talking about marriage; it uses, instead, the Arabic term "istamta'tum," from where "mut'ah" comes (literally means "pleasure").

Here are a few commentries on verse 4:24 :-

Tabari in his Tafsir-e-Kabir, part V and Imam Fakhru'd-din Razi in his Tafsir-e-Mafatihu'l-Ghaib, part III, have confirmed that this verse refers to mut'a.

In Surah ye Nisa, several kinds of marriage and wedlock have been mentioned: nika (permanent marriage), mut'a (temporary marriage), and marriage with mulk-e-Yamin (servants). For permanent marriage Qur'an says in the sura of Nisa: "Then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then only one or what your right hands possess." (4:3)

About Mulk-e-yamin (servants), Allah says: "And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are sprung the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters and give them their dowries justly." (4:25)

The command in verse 4 of sura Nisa to the effect that: "...as to those by whom you benefitted (from mut'a), give them their dowries as appointed...." was for mut'a, or temporary marriage. It could not be for permanent wedlock, for otherwise, it would mean that in the same chapter the decree regarding permanent wedlock has been repeated twice, which is against the rule, and if it is for mut'a, then it evidently is a permanent and separate decree.

First of all, your author, Fakhr ad din ar razi was a person who used philosophy in his tafseer, his core was that The Qur’aan shoud not be explained by the Sunnah (Hadith), because that would lead to presumption (zann) instead of Yaqeen, and this my best shia friend Nadir Shah Khan, is a failed and WRONG method. If you are ready to provide prove, bring it from the tafasir which all the muslims have agreed upon, Ibn Kathir for instace, in case you are of opinion that the Qur’aan is explained and shoud be explained by the Hadith and the Sunnah and athar of the prophet s.a.w. and his deciples, BUT if you don’t agree with this, then you can freely spam this forum with fatawa of Sistani and Shirazi and mytic houseparties of maatam and tatbir. But do not ascribe it to Ahl ul Sunnah.
And this also applies to our self made scholar Qaraquley.


A woman who is married in a mut’ah marriage, according to the Raafidis – i.e. the Shi’ah, who are the ones who say that this is permissible – is neither a wife nor a concubine. But Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;
But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors”
[al-Mu’minoon 23:5-7]

The Raafidis quote invalid evidence to support their argument that mut’ah is permissible. For example:
(a) They quote the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“…so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed…”
[al-Nisa’ 4:24]
They say: this verse indicates that mut’ah is permissible, and the word ‘their mahr (ujoorahunna – lit. their dues or their wages)’ is evidence that what is meant by the phrase ‘you have enjoyed sexual relations’ is mut’ah.
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.
The joy of marriage is expressed here by the word enjoyment (‘of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations’). A similar instance occurs in the Sunnah, in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Woman is like a bent rib, if you try to straighten her you will break her. If you want to enjoy her, then enjoy her while she still has some crookedness in her.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4889; Muslim, 1468.
The mahr is referred to here as ajr (lit. dues or wages), but this does not refer to the money which is paid to the woman with whom he engages in mut’ah in the contract of mut’ah. The mahr is referred to as ajr elsewhere in the Book of Allaah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage)…”
[al-Ahzaab 33:50]
Thus it becomes clear that there is no evidence in this verse to suggest that mut’ah is permissible.

if not more, unfair, since women don't have a say in whether their husbands should divorce them or not and when they should be divorced. At least mut'ah is entirely mutual, and it's not like only one spouse decides when the contract should end. They decide together.

You clearly know nothing of the Islamic jurisprudence and Shariah. There are narrations that the prophet allowed a woman to divorce a man because she did not like him. Or she was not attracted to him. When something is clearly forbidden, then your own opinion does not even matter, it’s useless information when there is a consensus (ijma’) on a matter.

Abu Isa Muhammad Bin Sawratu't-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, PART II, p.95, and Ibn Athir in his Jam'u'l-Usul have reported that a Syrian man asked Abdullah Bin Umar Bin Khattab what he considered about Mut'a-e-Nisa. He said: "Of course, it is lawful." The man said again, "But your father, the caliph, forbade the people to do it." He said, "It was ordered by the Holy Prophet; so if it has been prohibited by my father that order cannot supersede the order of the Holy Prophet. I am the follower of the Holy Prophet's order."

Weak narration,
Mu’tah an nisaa was prohibited by the prophet and the Sahaba peace be upon them.

Well, Umar did other things, too, that the Prophet either didn't do or didn't approve of. For instance, whereas the Prophet himself said, according to some hadith reports, that he does not want anyone to pray the tarawee prayers with him (because, he feared, Muslims would start considering it as obligatory), Umar later decided that it was better if people did tarawee together. I once read somewhere that he said, "What a good innovation this is!"

This is indicated by the Sunnah and the actions of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).
1 – al-Bukhaari (1129) and Muslim (761) narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed one night in the mosque, and the people followed him in prayer. Then he prayed the next night, and many people came. Then they gathered on the third or fourth night, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not come out to them. The next morning he said: “I saw what you did, and nothing kept me from coming out to you except the fact that I feared that it would be made obligatory for you.” And that was in Ramadaan.

This indicates that praying Taraweeh in congregation is prescribed according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but he refrained from doing it because he feared that it would be made obligatory for the ummah. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, this reservation was no longer required, because the sharee’ah was established.


2 – al-Tirmidhi (806) narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever prays qiyaam – i.e., Taraweeh – with the imam until he finishes, it will be recorded as if he spent the whole night in prayer.”
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.


3 – al-Bukhaari (2010) narrated that ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Abd al-Qaari said: I went out with ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) to the mosque one night in Ramadaan, and the people were scattered, each man praying by himself. Some men would pray and have groups of people behind them following them. ‘Umar said: “I think that if I unite all these people with one reader, it will be better. Then he resolved to gather them behind Ubayy ibn Ka’b.


al-Haafiz said:
Ibn al-Teen and others said that ‘Umar based this decision on the Prophet’s approval of those who prayed with him on those nights. Although he disliked that for them, that was based on the fear that it might be made obligatory for them. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, there was no longer any fear of that happening, and ‘Umar thought, because of the potential division that might arise from people praying separately, and because uniting them behind one reader is more motivating for many people. The majority agreed with ‘Umar’s decision. End quote from Fath al-Baari.
Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmoo’, 3/526:


Praying Taraweeh is Sunnah according to scholarly consensus… It is permissible to offer this prayer alone or in congregation, but which is better? There are two well-known opinions on this matter. The correct view according to the consensus of our companions is that praying it in congregation is better. The second view is that it is better to pray it individually.


Our companions said: The difference of opinion has to do with one who has memorized the Qur’aan; there is no fear that he may become lazy and neglect it if he prays on his own, and the congregation in the mosque is not going to be affected if he stays away. But if one of these factors is absent, then praying in congregation is better, and there is no difference of scholarly opinion on this point.
The author of al-Shaamil said: Abu’l-‘Abbaas and Abu Ishaaq said that praying Taraweeh in congregation is better than praying it individually, because of the consensus of the Sahaabah and the consensus of the scholars of the regions on this point. End quote.
Ibn al-Mubaarak, Ahmad and Ishaaq favoured praying with the imam during the month of Ramadaan.


It says in Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi:
In the book on night prayer (qiyaam): it was said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Do you prefer a man to pray with the people in Ramadaan or on his own? He said: He should pray with the people. He said: And I prefer that he should pray with the imam and pray Witr with him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man prays qiyaam with the imam until he finishes, it will be recorded as if he spent the rest of the night (in prayer).” Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “He should pray with the people until he prays Witr with them, and he should not leave until the imam leaves. Abu Dawood said: I saw him (Imam Ahmad) – in the month of Ramadaan, praying Witr with his imam, except on one night when I did not attend. Ishaaq (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: I said to Ahmad: Is praying qiyaam in Ramadaan in congregation dearer to you or praying on one’s own? He said: I prefer that this prayer should be offered in congregation, so as to revive the Sunnah. And Ishaaq said the same. End quote.


See al-Mughni, 1/457.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said in Majaalis Shahr Ramadaan, p. 22:
At first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to pray Taraweeh in congregation in the mosque, then he stopped because he feared that it might be made obligatory upon his ummah…

Then he quoted the two ahaadeeth quoted above. Then he said:
No man should keep away from Taraweeh prayer lest he misses out on the reward for it. And he should not leave until the imam finishes Taraweeh and Witr, so that he may attain the reward of spending the whole night in prayer. End quote.
Al-Albaani said in Qiyaam Ramadaan: Rather it (praying Taraweeh in congregation) is better than praying it alone, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did it himself and explained its virtue.


Rather he did not lead them in praying it in congregation for the rest of the month because he feared that praying at night during Ramadaan might be made obligatory for them, and they would be unable to do that, as it says in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah which is narrated in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere. This concern no longer applied after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and Allaah had completed Islam. Hence the reason for not praying in congregation when offering night prayers in Ramadaan was no longer present, and the previous ruling remained in effect, which is that it is prescribed to offer this prayer in congregation. Hence ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) revived it, as it says in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and elsewhere. End quote.

It says in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (27/138):
From the time of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the Muslims regularly offered Taraweeh prayer in congregation. ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) is the one who united the people in offering the prayer behind a single imam.
Asad ibn ‘Amr ibn Abi Yoosuf said: I asked Abu Haneefah about Taraweeh and what ‘Umar did. He said: Taraweeh is a confirmed Sunnah, and ‘Umar did not base his decision on speculation and he was not introducing bid’ah (an innovation). He did not enjoin it except because of what he knew from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). ‘Umar introduced this and gathered the people behind Ubayy ibn Ka’b and he offered this prayer in congregation, at the time when the Sahaabah – the Muhaajireen and Ansaar – were still alive, and no one among them objected to that, rather they helped him and agreed with him, and also enjoined it. End quote.
And Allaah knows best.


What Umar ibn Khattab (r.a) did was not an innovation at all. Taraweh was and is an established Sunnah.

Allah knows best.

Then another thing Umar did was ... the triple talaaq practice. Triple talaaq (when the man says "talaaq" three times to his wife *in the same sitting*, and the wife is divorced) was a common form of divorce in Arabia before Islam. The form of divorce that the Quran advocates doesn't seem at all supportive of triple talaaq, but according to some (Sunni) hadiths, Umar decided that it was okay to get this practice back.

Again, this is a blatant lie of the rafidi shi’as on Umar (ra). Here is a fatwa which refutes those arguments with proves from the Sunnah.

http://infad.usim.edu.my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3433

Whether I'm personally okay with it or not isn't the point here; the point is that these are supported by evidence from hadiths -- in Bukhari, more than anywhere else. They're all over the place, so you can verify them for yourself if you don't believe this.
__________________

Every hadith has it’s science, chain of narrators, context, matn, sharh etc. Maybe it is wise to start with those subjects before swimming online and educating others with the WRONG knowledge.

The fact that shia aqeedah is kufr, ALL of you will agree, and if there is anyone who can prove that it is not KUFR, then take a step forward. BUT the aa’m people can not be called kuffaar according to the scolars of the ummah.

wsalam

[Roshina]

As always, most of us are more interested in deciding who’s kuffar and who’s Muslim than having a discussion regarding the philosophical and theological justifications of the beliefs of a sect we have endemic loathing for.

Good luck in uniting the Muslim world, folks. With this kind of attitude towards those who classify themselves as Muslims (again, whether you like it or not), you're not guaranteeing yourselves -- meaning all Muslims -- a peaceful world.

I always ask myself over and over why I find pleasure in hitting my head against walls and stones, talking to people who speak a language that has no words in common with mine. Clearly, then, one of the most important goals in my life now is to know exactly who is worthy of hearing my views and who's not, figuring out who I should hold discussions with and all. Alas ... alas ...!

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

No one has called you a kafir, at least I have not. Your intentions are being doubted. Simple.

Why is it that you always find flaws with Islam? I am really being sincere. Why is it that you are always attacking everything that Islam stands for?

It's mind blowing, to say the least.

[Roshina]

No one has called you a kafir, at least I have not.

No, not to me (I'll explain why I don't care if someone ever DOES call me Kafir, which is not insulting to me; if I take it as an insult, I'll be submitting to the wishes of the people who issue such ridiculous insults). But we call Shiites kafir just because we don't agree with their beliefs. As I've said before, we've not even bothered studying Shiism from Shiite sources! NOTHING that's being discussed today has not been thoroughly covered or discussed in Shiite sources from the beginning of Islam.

Now, believe me - I woudln't care if anyone with the type of mentality that most of us have here called me a kafir or not, bro. In fact, I'd much rather be what these people are not because, in all honesty, to stand in the same boat with them would be insulting to my psyche. Simple.

There are only certain people in this world whose opinion matters to me, and they are certainly not people who not only don't know how to hold a decent discussion, how to think, how to develop the ability to reason, but they resort to name-calling over and over and over again instead of sticking to a topic. One thing we need to learn is what sort of questions to ask in a discussion. For instance, you don't ask someone, "Do you believe in this and that?" when holding a debate with them. You should ask, instead, "What do you believe is the connection between <such and such>?" or "What do you consider is the importance, or what do you think are the implications, of such and such?"

This is a problem among the people with the "holier-than-thou" attitude.

I bet my life on the fact, for instance, that most (if not all) members who've read this forum will be thinking that I support mut'ah marriages. See, this is wrong because this is supposed to be a discussion on mut'ah and not whether it's wrong or right. It should be on the justifications of Shiites for holding mut'ah marriages.

So what that many Shiites have distorted the concept of mut'ah marriages, and (supposedly) prostitution is ruining their society? That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard -- that mut'ah is bad because it leads to prostitution. That's like saying, "Polygamy should be banned because men abuse their older wives while treating their younger ones like queens."

We need arguments, bro. We need arguments and then support for those arguments. I'm SERIOUSLY questioning my being on online forums, wasting my time with people who don't know how to argue or how to respond to challenges. I'm decreasing my time here more and more, partly because real-life discussions are far more fruitful and you know what kind of people you're talking to instead of wanting to stop in the middle because the people turn out to be illiterate children. (This is not to say all PF members are like this, of course, but many, many are.)

Your intentions are being doubted. Simple.

Again, why is this about intentions? Who are you to decide what my intentions are? You don't live in my mind; only I do.

What, my making statements like "The Prophet did this" (something you don't wanna believe), or "one way this verse can be interpreted is ..." (an interpretation you won't like but is just as legitimate as the one you may have in mind), or "The reason Shiites believe this is that ..." (a belief you don't share with them), and so on, is a good enough reason for you to tell me that I should not call myself Muslim? (You've said this at least two times, as far as I've noted.) Again, I don't really care if you call me Muslim or Kafir, because your opinion won't change my beliefs whatsoever, but I'm reminding you that instead of calling these questions wrong, if you call them wrong, you should instead be trying to refute my claims.

Yes, why don't you just refute what I say instead of making comments that are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion?

Why is it that you always find flaws with Islam? I am really being sincere.

Perhaps because there ARE flaws in our beliefs. Not only in our beliefs but in the way we hold a discussion with someone, particularly with those who we don't agree with.

Why is it that you are always attacking everything that Islam stands for?

There's a HUGE difference between Islam stands for and what Muslims use as justification for their beliefs. There's a HUGE difference between what Islam says and what Muslims practice. So, to start with, your conclusion about my posts is wrong.

Nonetheless, I've ALWAYS given evidence for every single claim I've made in regards to Islam (unlike some of us who are saying, for instance, that Shiites don't give women property without giving evidence for this lie; this is so untrue). You think that I put hadiths above Quran, which is not true - because I believe the Quran is the first and main authority -- BUT I give "authentic" hadiths. Just because these hadiths might mean nothing to you, dear brother, doesn't mean they shouldn't mean anything to others. There are hadiths, authentic ones, for practically everything. This is why most Muslims generally beleive that Islam is a universal and eternal religion becuase it covers EVERYthing in life.

I don't attack Islam. If I give hadiths to justify my claim, you should be looking at the hadiths instead of trying to figure out what my intentions are or telling me that I'm attacking Islam. If you call it criticism, so be it; in fact, it probably IS criticism, but I don't mind "criticizing" something that I believe is faulty and have evidence for.

It's like, if I say that according to some hadiths, anyone who leaves Islam should be killed, some Muslims feel attacked and go, "SHUT UP! That's not true!!! Why are you attacking ISLAM??!" :| And I'm like, "Um... dude, hadiths say that, not me. I'm only quoting a major source of your beliefs."

Will it mean that my intention is to give Islam a bad image? That depends on who's reading what I'm saying. It should enforce someone to go and verify my claim themselves; it could make someone question the legitimacy of their faith; or it could make someone study the meaning behind that type of punishment.

So, like Nadir Shah wror indicated, blame it on the people who compiled and transmitted the hadiths, not on us for giving you the *facts.* If you want to argue that, no, those hadiths cannot be authentic, that will actually be very much appreciated, and I will most likely agree with your reasoning.

Anyway, I've said all I wanted here. Unless someone's interested in a discussion, I'm not going to waste any more minutes of my life on people who get too personal in discussions because they don't have a good argument to present to others and can't justify their beliefs.

Peace.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

No, not to me (I'll explain why I don't care if someone ever DOES call me Kafir, which is not insulting to me; if I take it as an insult, I'll be submitting to the wishes of the people who issue such ridiculous insults). But we call Shiites kafir just because we don't agree with their beliefs. As I've said before, we've not even bothered studying Shiism from Shiite sources! NOTHING that's being discussed today has not been thoroughly covered or discussed in Shiite sources from the beginning of Islam.

Now, believe me - I woudln't care if anyone with the type of mentality that most of us have here called me a kafir or not, bro. In fact, I'd much rather be what these people are not because, in all honesty, to stand in the same boat with them would be insulting to my psyche. Simple.

There are only certain people in this world whose opinion matters to me, and they are certainly not people who not only don't know how to hold a decent discussion, how to think, how to develop the ability to reason, but they resort to name-calling over and over and over again instead of sticking to a topic. One thing we need to learn is what sort of questions to ask in a discussion. For instance, you don't ask someone, "Do you believe in this and that?" when holding a debate with them. You should ask, instead, "What do you believe is the connection between <such and such>?" or "What do you consider is the importance, or what do you think are the implications, of such and such?"

This is a problem among the people with the "holier-than-thou" attitude.

I bet my life on the fact, for instance, that most (if not all) members who've read this forum will be thinking that I support mut'ah marriages. See, this is wrong because this is supposed to be a discussion on mut'ah and not whether it's wrong or right. It should be on the justifications of Shiites for holding mut'ah marriages.

So what that many Shiites have distorted the concept of mut'ah marriages, and (supposedly) prostitution is ruining their society? That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard -- that mut'ah is bad because it leads to prostitution. That's like saying, "Polygamy should be banned because men abuse their older wives while treating their younger ones like queens."

We need arguments, bro. We need arguments and then support for those arguments. I'm SERIOUSLY questioning my being on online forums, wasting my time with people who don't know how to argue or how to respond to challenges. I'm decreasing my time here more and more, partly because real-life discussions are far more fruitful and you know what kind of people you're talking to instead of wanting to stop in the middle because the people turn out to be illiterate children. (This is not to say all PF members are like this, of course, but many, many are.)



Again, why is this about intentions? Who are you to decide what my intentions are? You don't live in my mind; only I do.

What, my making statements like "The Prophet did this" (something you don't wanna believe), or "one way this verse can be interpreted is ..." (an interpretation you won't like but is just as legitimate as the one you may have in mind), or "The reason Shiites believe this is that ..." (a belief you don't share with them), and so on, is a good enough reason for you to tell me that I should not call myself Muslim? (You've said this at least two times, as far as I've noted.) Again, I don't really care if you call me Muslim or Kafir, because your opinion won't change my beliefs whatsoever, but I'm reminding you that instead of calling these questions wrong, if you call them wrong, you should instead be trying to refute my claims.

Yes, why don't you just refute what I say instead of making comments that are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion?



Perhaps because there ARE flaws in our beliefs. Not only in our beliefs but in the way we hold a discussion with someone, particularly with those who we don't agree with.



There's a HUGE difference between Islam stands for and what Muslims use as justification for their beliefs. There's a HUGE difference between what Islam says and what Muslims practice. So, to start with, your conclusion about my posts is wrong.

Nonetheless, I've ALWAYS given evidence for every single claim I've made in regards to Islam (unlike some of us who are saying, for instance, that Shiites don't give women property without giving evidence for this lie; this is so untrue). You think that I put hadiths above Quran, which is not true - because I believe the Quran is the first and main authority -- BUT I give "authentic" hadiths. Just because these hadiths might mean nothing to you, dear brother, doesn't mean they shouldn't mean anything to others. There are hadiths, authentic ones, for practically everything. This is why most Muslims generally beleive that Islam is a universal and eternal religion becuase it covers EVERYthing in life.

I don't attack Islam. If I give hadiths to justify my claim, you should be looking at the hadiths instead of trying to figure out what my intentions are or telling me that I'm attacking Islam. If you call it criticism, so be it; in fact, it probably IS criticism, but I don't mind "criticizing" something that I believe is faulty and have evidence for.

It's like, if I say that according to some hadiths, anyone who leaves Islam should be killed, some Muslims feel attacked and go, "SHUT UP! That's not true!!! Why are you attacking ISLAM??!" :| And I'm like, "Um... dude, hadiths say that, not me. I'm only quoting a major source of your beliefs."

Will it mean that my intention is to give Islam a bad image? That depends on who's reading what I'm saying. It should enforce someone to go and verify my claim themselves; it could make someone question the legitimacy of their faith; or it could make someone study the meaning behind that type of punishment.

So, like Nadir Shah wror indicated, blame it on the people who compiled and transmitted the hadiths, not on us for giving you the *facts.* If you want to argue that, no, those hadiths cannot be authentic, that will actually be very much appreciated, and I will most likely agree with your reasoning.

Thank you for the post.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

there ARE flaws in our beliefs.

The red bold says it all!.The rest of your post is a contradiction.

I honestly don't have a problem with those who criticize Islam--not at all. I love discussing with them. What I don't like are those who think they know everything about Islam and then they "pinpoint" all of the flaws with Islam, and to make the story even more juicy, they claim to be Muslim. This is mind blowing. The perfect example is Irshad Manji. She is an authority on Islam in our time. She is consulted by the Western media whenever it is needed.

I am glad that you cleared up that you do believe that Islam has flaws.

As I mentioned earlier, I will read your posts and I will respond to them; however, I will read them from the perspective of someone who finds flaws with Islam, like Irshad Manji.

Here is another question: You can't change Islam, so why not lead us to your idea of truth? If Islam has so many flaws then why are you still hanging around? Instead of being critical and trying to pinpoint flaws to us, from within, why not just preach to us what you really belief to be true? I for one would love to hear you out.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I am pretty sure, now that you have cleared up your stance on Islam, no one will bother you--at least I won't.

[Nadir Shah]

Again the main problem lies in the ahadith which the shias have. In their ahadith which they attribute to their imams and in turn they claim the imams have the knowledge from their forefathers going back to Hazrat Ali (ra). They claim they uphold the authentic sunnah and they follow the true Islam.

We shouldn't debate with shias about Mutah or any other trivial issues but the main difference between us is the issue of Aimmah. That is what we should always concetrate on. The rest of the issues are trivial.

I don't blame the ordinary shias for their deviation but their scholars who attributed false things to respected imams and the ahlul bayt. Still I consider them our brothers and not our enemies. I pray that they return to the straight path just like the prophet (SW) used to pray for misguided people.

Malgariya explain this to me. How are Bukhari and Moslem more reliable than Shiekh Saduq and Yaqub ye Kulayni? How can we assume that our Sahihs are more authentic than the Usul and Faru ye Kafi? There are numerous contradictory, absurd and concoted ahadith in the Sahihs. What do we do with them?
Another issue: The history of Islam is a very controversial subject. There are divergent views regarding many events such as the Ghadir ye Khum and Sakifa ye Bani Saad? How can we not see the effect of political manipulation on the compilation of hadith?
The way I see it, the people who supported Muawiya against Ali wanted to prove the superiority of the Shiekhein and those with Ali wanted to prove the superiority of Bani ye Hashim.