Nasibi website tried to respond to My Article, titled: “Sunnis and Mutah”And they did not refute any of my references given in This Article, rather accepted it by admitting that:-

In this article, SoA quotes the opinion of Ibn Juraij, the Sunni Mekkan scholar, on the permissibility of the temporary marriage. SoA also quotes those that have affirmed that Ibn Juraij did partake in this.

We admit that this is the case, for Ibn Juraij, and even those before him like Ibn Abbas and Sa’eed bin Jubair, believed that muta’ah is permissible according to the sharee’ah.

Good enough. And We are thankful to them for their admission.

Having said this, They Quote  4 Shia Narrations, and about Narration No. 3 & 4, they mentioned that It was from the same source, and that There are some Questions about  authenticity of the book. This basically gives an impression to the Readers that They are being very honest. Rather They even made a claim that

We mention this point so that we won’t be accused of being non-academic with our arguments.

Let us analyse This claim

Dear Readers ! If someone gives you a glass of water, and informs You that it is a glass of Milk; Will You accept That claim? Of course Not.

But what If someone takes a glass of Milk, and adds to 2 spoons of water to it, and Then present it as glass of Milk? I am sure You would agree that Here the chances of being deceived would increase a lot, as compared to the case of water.

This is exactly What These Nasibi have done.

Dear Readers! Deception is to Nasibis what Water is to Fish. Both cant live without These Things.

Let me explain. They mentioned a Narration from Imam Ali (asws), but did not give any info of the Narrators, Whether all of the Narrators were Shia Greats OR if There was any Sunni or Zaidi Narrator in it. Alternatively, they should have quoted Shia Scholars Authenticating The Narration. Academically, They should have , but instead They just made a Claim that

The first narration is authentic and cannot be weakened.

Really, The Narration is Authetnic???

Is it not True that Sheikh Tusi had termed the Narration Shadh (هذه الرواية الشاذة ), in the same very book Nasibis mentioned, just a couple of lines Ahead?

Are These People Not Aware that Shadh Narration is actually a Type of Weak Narration, as has been mentined by Dr Mahmood Taihan in His Taisar Mustalah-ul-Hadeeth,(Urdu version) p. 112

“It is known that Shadh is a Rejected, and Not Accepted Narration”

I hope Now You People would understand Why They were trying to be so academic ……… Just to gain Your confidence so that they can do what they love to do ……………. Deception

They also quoted another Narration, Let us see How They translated it

2- abu al-Hasan al-Rida in al-Kafi 5/467: He was asked about if a man is able to marry in muta`a and goes with her from country to country? He replied: “The other marriage is permissible, not this one.”

It is pretty easily seen that The question being asked, is  about a specific scenario, that is, a person does Muta’a and then takes her from country to country.

So Let us see What Shia Scholars say about it. Sheikh Hur Amili included This narration in Wasail-us-Shia,21/77; and Named it:-

باب حكم نقل المرأة المتمتع بها من بلد إلى بلد

Chapter on Ruling regarding Taking a Lady with whom Muta’a is done from City to City

So, Name of Chapter again shows that it is about a Particular situation, not general rule.

Majlisi I, also explained This Narration in his Rauda-tul-Mutaqeen, 8/502, and said

.

وفي الصحيح ، عن معمر بن خلاد قال سألت أبا الحسن الرضا عليه السلام عن الرجل يتزوج المرأة متعة فيحملها من بلد إلى بلد فقال : يجوز النكاح الآخر ولا يجوز هذا  أي لا يجب على المتمتعة إطاعة زوجها في الخروج من البلد كما كانت تجب – على الدائمة 

And in Saheeh from Mo’mar bin Khalad………………This means that It is not Must to obey Husband in Muta’a to go out from country/City, as is Must in case of Permanent Marriage. 

Keep in mind that Even Majlisi II mentioned it in His Miraat-ul-U’qool after what was mentioned by These Nasibis where He said it being in Taqayya. Majlisi II says in Miraat, 20/257

و حمله الوالد العلامة رحمه الله على أن المعنى أنه لا يجب على المتمتعة إطاعة زوجها في الخروج من البلد، كما كانت تجب في الدائمة.

أقول: و يحتمل على بعد أن يكون المراد بالنكاح الآخر المتعة، أي غير الدائم أي يجوز أصل العقد، و لا يجوز جبرها على الإخراج عن البلد.

And My Father took it in the meaning that it is not Must for Lady in Muta’a to obey her Husband in going out from City, as it is must in case of Permanent Marriage. 

I say: And it is possible that the meaning of the “other Nikah” is Mut’a, i.e, not Permanent. It means that the Aqd of marriage itself is allowed, but it is not allowed to force her to go out from the city (with husband).

I Hope Now You understand How much Academic These People are.

 

 

mut1

 

 

mut2

 

Advertisements