Empiree:
isnt where the verse says "APPOINTED"?

Besides, is this ayah the strongest evidence of muta according to shi'a?. If so, from the ayah where istimta appears has nothign to do with MUTA has we know it. It seems to be talking about the same woman you married to and enjoyed. If if we are to isolate the phrased as you previous opinined, it isd still referring to what i just said.

Empiree:
So i don't get the idea of condemning shi'a now. Mrolai, over to you

AlBaqir:



Inna lillahi Wa inna ilayhi rajiun The Hadith is Da'if. Before given you my proof, let me ask you the following:

AlBaqir:

# Why didn't Umar stoned Amr Ibn Hurayth when he impregnated a slave girl he had MUT'AH with? Why did Umar even proposed Amr should have done MUT'AH with other than a slave? Is MUT'AH with slave not merit Umar's punishment of stoning?

AlBaqir:

# Did Umar forgot this alleged Hadith ni only for him to remember few years to the end of his reign? MUT'AH were continuously being performed by SAHABAH during Abubakr, and Umar's reign UNTIL toward the last reign of Umar!

AlBaqir:

# Why did Ali said, "Had Umar not banned MUT'AH for people, only a wretched would have commit Zina"? Was it Umar's ban or Nabi's ban? It even clearly showed that People were seriously into MUT'AH then.

AlBaqir:

Too much discrepancies (as Qur'an puts it).

AlBaqir:

Ahlu Sunnah, fear Allah with all these fabrications in the name of Rasul and your sahabah.

AlBaqir:

# SO TO THE HADITH:

NOTE: The hadith is actually ḍa’if. Concerning one of its narrators,

1. al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) states:

Aban b. ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Hazim b. Sakhr b. al-‘Aylah al-Bajali al-Ahmasi al-Kuf: Sadūq (very truthful), there is weakness in his memory.

Source: Aḥmad b. ‘Alī b. Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (Beirut: Dār al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Muṣtafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 1, p. 51, # 140 108


2. Imam Ibn Hibban (d. 354 H) give us more details


Aban b. ‘Abd Allah al-Bajalī, from the people of Kūfa, and he was the one called Abān b. Abī Ḥāzim. He narrated from Abān b. Taghlib and the people of Kūfah. Al-Thawrī, Wakī’ and the people narrated from him. He was one of those whose mistakes were terrible, and who narrated manākīr (repugnant reports) without corroboration. Al-Hamdānī informed us, and said: I heard ‘Amr b. ‘Ali saying: “I never heard Yahya b. Sa'id al-Qaṭṭān ever narrating anything from him” – he meant Aban al-Bajali.

Source: Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad b. Ḥibbān b. Aḥmad al-Tamīmī al-Bustī, Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn [annotator: Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm Zāyad], vol. 1, p. 99

So, how on earth can such Hadith be "Hasan"? Aban was in a worst situation. I wonder how Albani made such blunder grading the Hadith " hasan". I can give you link to those books for verification.

AlBaqir:

# Anyway, the theme of this thread is 100% established: Sahabah continue to approve and perform MUT'AH after the demise of Nabi. Tabi'ieen too followed suit. So, if MUT'AH was Zina, they ALL committed ZINA (ADULTERY AND FORNICATION) 100%..

sino:

Mut'ah is HARAM, anyone who did it then may have done so out of ignorance! If you cannot bring evidences of those who did it after being challenged, then you do not have a point!

AlBaqir:


# In Sunni interpretation of Islam, sex with your slave girl is halal. It is neither marriage nor MUT'AH.

So, the fact that the Hadith says it was MUT'AH that Amr admitted to have done with the slave girl, and Umar even proposed, "why not with other than a slave", clearly showed that the slave was not Amr's.

There's no escape bro.

sino:

Now Amr impregnated a slave which is not his, and claimed he did mut'ah. First issue is that, a slave has no right to consent to such a relationship, where would you put her owner?! Is a slave FREE to make such contracts on her own?!

AlBaqir:
The Hadith is nothing. Don't waste your time on it. And if you are adamant on it, then the problem bounce back upon Umar who permitted MUT'AH for almost entire duration of his reign as caliph.

# If truly, Umar believed that Prophet prohibited MUT'AH as said in the da'if Hadith, why offering Amr Ibn Hurayth an alternative of a free woman other than slave he did MUT'AH with, and impregnated?

# Offering him an alternative simply confirmed he sees nothing wrong doing it. This is the reason Imam Ibn Hazm conclude that:

"...It is narrated that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab only denied it if two just people did not act as its witnesses, and he considered it permissible if two just people acted as witnesses to it."

This explains why he said to Amr, "why not doing it with a free woman".

AlBaqir:

# There are lots of philosophical questions you keep on evading tendering excuses over excuses. Islam is not about "text" alone, your Aql need to come along. And since you have buried your Aql, there is no use continuing with you.

AlBaqir:

# Case of Ibn Abbas will continue to hunt you. Whether with or without necessity, he continue to affirm MUT'AH after being challenge by an "uncouth fellow".

AlBaqir:

# Please stop tendering that silly " ignorance" excuse. MUT'AH was practised for around 10 years by sahabah after the demise of Nabi yet you are saying it was out of ignorance! Can't you hear yourself.

* Under the watch of Abubakr and Umar only for the later to ban it because of Amr's case. Yet you are saying "out of ignorance"?!

* How is it possible that Abubakr, Umar, Asma bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn ‘Abbas, Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, ‘Amr b. Ḥurayth, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Salamah and Ma’bad – sons of Umayyah b. Khalaf, all never took the alleged prohibition at three different occasions into any consideration? Hahaha...!

AlBaqir:

# I've known you never to be sincere to yourself when it comes to dialogue like this.

AlBaqir:


# No one ask you for all those Tahrif. You are the one that brought what is not needed in trying to absolve Amr. You suggested "the slave is his", because there is no case in "sex with your slave".

# So, thank God for once you dropped your adamancy and accept Amr did MUT'AH with a slave girl and impregnated her.

# So, we are left with the word of Umar, "why not other than her"?

* In my view, that means Umar saw nothing wrong with MUT'AH so long you do it right i. e not take advantage of e.g a slave. What do you infer from the word of Umar?

Empiree:
oh I see. Actually I don't think my arguments since the beginning of this thread is about @bold. It is actually and more accurately is in line with points raised in the video i posted.

My argument about muta since the beginning of this thread is about validity and practice of muta AFTER the demise of nabi (saw). I don't think I have raised issue with constraint about muta so far. I raised it when I posted the video.

Empiree:

if this is what he meant @underlined, I am sorry to disappoint you that he's right PRACTICALLY. I would imagine you would know this?. It is true that that's what Quran said (to stay chase). Thats theory. People can quote quran but when it comes to practical you know that it is not easy. Many would fall into zina. This is the reality. I don't think you viewed screenshots I posted few days ago. The sheikh said zina is everywhere but marriage is delayed. Why don't people fast?. I won't deceive myself. Don't take this to mean albaqir or me are underrating the solutions proferred by Quran and sunnah. Not at all. I'm am saying that majority of people including anti-muta actually commit zina while condemning muta. My argument for validity of muta is that it is not zina. If anyone says it is zina the implication is that you are accusing nabiy (saw) of recommending zina to sahaba at some point. That's why I said all arguments to ridicule muta are not valid except where it is reported he (saw) banned it at khaybar.

Empiree:

question I would like to ask you is that what solution do you have for these kids today who are sexually active and actually committing zina everyday? . Please don't tell me they need to fast bcus practically they wont unless you want to deceive yourself.

Empiree:

Anyways, I would like you to watch the video. If it's 44mins but the real concern actually started at around 18mins. I want to know your view. The sheikh said there exist other type of marriage similar to our normal marriage and that even sunni recognizes it with conditions.

Empiree:

But if u insist there is no alternative marriage, why do Arab sunni invented misyar which also has elements of muta?. Misyar is not even mentioned in the kitab and sunnah.

Let me remind you again that this is not about ignoring ayah of quran you quoted but I'm saying to you practically that most people do not abide by the injunction. They would commit zina. Maybe I should post the video for you to see. Will do that as soon as I get the chance. It says not all sunni ulama considered muta to be zina. The other video I posted says there is other type of marriage designed for specific female to avoid zina.

Remember people, that Quran can not be translated. We can only explain Quran. We should all know that by now.

Empiree:
Now read this. Remember i asked you like twice if there is other form of nikkah besides "conventional marriage" as we know it?. You said nikah is nikah which means there is nothing like mulikayamin or muta etc. Now read this


Misyar now ‘a widespread reality’

“Misyar is widespread because many need to keep their marriages a secret, either due to the objection of the first wife or other family pressures,” Ali Al-Bakr, faculty member at KSU, told a local daily. Getting married in the Kingdom is no longer easy, according to one report, thanks to countless social and economic obstacles, including extortionate dowries, costly wedding extravaganzas and lack of housing.
In a misyar marriage the woman waives some of the rights she would enjoy in a normal marriage. Most misyar brides don’t change their residences but pursue marriage on a visitation basis. Some marriage officials say seven of 10 marriage contracts they conduct are misyar, and in some cases are asked to recommend prospective misyar partners.

http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/642991


Wallahi, mrolai has no case against shi'a. He needs to read this. Why condemn shi'a for holding on to alternative nikkah (mut'ah) while Sunni arabs do the very similar nikkah(misyar)?. See what the excerpt says, and watch sheikh Imran Hosein lecture i posted up there, he said something similar. And i have said the same that this alternative nikkah helps people from falling into zina. Now sino, why didnt saudi uphold kitab and sunnah injunctions which state to be chaste or fast instead of fornication?. Does the nikkah arrangement by Saudi constitutes zina or not?. Remember the reason for misyar in Saudi is bcus of growing cost of marriage to maintain their wife which Quran directly addressed. Why not order people to be chaste instead of giving them "plan B" solution to conventional marriage?


The article states further,

Some people believe that these factors have led to the widespread practice of misyar, which has flexible conditions compared with traditional marriages, as a last resort. “It remains an option, albeit a temporary one, which is, nevertheless, seen as unfair to women in many cases,” said a national.

Now, do you still believe there is no alternative nikkah?. You said marriage is marriage. Traditional marriage mentioned in this article refers to conventional marriage i have been talking about. Evidently, if Saudi did not employ this tactic, ,millions of their women would not be married bcus men can simply not afford the responsibilities. This is very similar to what the video said.


Functions of Misyra and Muta are the same. نقطة


And, please don't forget to read comments below the article

This is one of the comments. I can't stop laughing

Remember you made fun of albaqir earlier, what's the difference now


[b][/b]

Empiree:

Definitely, this would be strange to me too if I am in that region

Exactly what Saudi is doing in times of Hajj. I remembered my sister-in-law went for Umra this year and she was issued certificate of marriage to another man. But my brother to whom she is married to (was not with her) rejected the idea. So i don't get the idea of condemning shi'a now. Mrolai, over to you

sino:


"The narration is authentic, even though Aban bin Abdullah bin Abi Hazim was weakened by some, one finds that he was deemed trustworthy by Yahya bin Ma’een, Imam Ahmad, and Ibn Numair. Ibn Adi adds that he did not find any munkar traditions from Aban. See Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb 1/54.

Yet, even if one were to accept the criticism of Ibn Hibban, who weakened him for relating uncorroborated traditions, we find that the narration by Omar is corroborated by Ali, Ibn Omar, Sabra, and Salama. Thus, to treat this report as an uncorroborated tradition is unjust."
Source

sino:


Of course there is no alternative Nikkah! Misyar was not prescribed by the Prophet (SAW) nor can it be found in the Qur'an. Be that as it may, the most important thing for a Nikkah to be sanctioned in the Shari'ah is that it must comply with the conditions, and it must not be temporary. If a nikkah had been performed, and the conditions are met, then it is Nikkah.

I don't think it is Saudi that is doing this, confirm your information properly. What I know is like in Nigeria, because saudi doesn't allow a woman to travel alone for hajj except with a mahrahm, the hajj agency here starts fixing people together so as to make these women travel for hajj.

sino:
First I find your comment strange, saying what Allah (SWT) says is just theory is absurd! Allah (swt) created us and knows us completely, if it isn't in our capacity to be chaste, he wouldn't demand that from us! Why is sex the issue?! What about alcohol?! Gambling?! Are these vices not everywhere?!

What is apparent is that people are committing zina in the name of mut'ah,

mut'ah had been prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), and this was the consensus of the sahabas when Umar (ra) restated the prohibition, none of them countered him!

First mut'ah is never the solution for this, because even during the time it was permitted, it was during expeditions or long travelling. Secondly, Islam had already provided solutions with respect to training our children and living in the society. Early marriage is one of the solution, rather than allow your 15 year old daughter to be sleeping around, why not get her married?!

Note: Mut'ah is quite different, for the conditions are not the same as Nikkah, the woman is not even called a wife, she has no right except for what she gets during the contract which is to be cheap, cos if it is expensive, then it defeats the purpose, again if she gets pregnant, it is her wahala, nothing binds the man to do anything, and once it is terminated, there is nothing to be given to her. Why people say it is prostitution is because they are similar, you pay for the services, which is sex! Would you like this for your daughter Empir.ee?!

AlBaqir:



# That's a rookie work there. You don't corroborate a munkar or highly controversial Hadith narrator like that.

# For a start, it was not only Ibn Hibban that accused Aban as your web also affirmed @underline.

# Sino, be attentive and let us explain to you and that website. This is it:

1. Hadith of Umar that he stood up on the minbar and declared Nabi prohibited MUT'AH 3 times. This context is where Aban, our highly controversial figure comes.

NB: For that Hadith in its context to have any usefulness, we need another Hadith of the same context or very similar context without Aban in the chain whereby the new that will come in will be shahid (witness). That is how you corroborate and that is the only way the first Hadith where Aban appeared could become hasan.


2. Ali never reported the context of "Umar climbed minbar and ....". Rather, Hadith of Ali are of two types:

A. That Nabi prohibited MUT'AH at KHAYBAR. This is the ONLY prohibition seemed known to Ali. Not at Fat'h Makkah and Hajj al-wada, the other 2 places/times.

B. That, "Had Umar not banned MUT'AH, only a wretched person would have commit Zina".

# In short, none of the two ahadith corroborate the context of Hadith attributed to Umar.



3. Ibn Umar: He only mentioned that Umar promised to punish whoever practice MUT'AH. Not that, " Umar stood up on the minbar and declare Allah's messenger prohibited MUT'AH 3 times..."



4. Hadith of Sabrah: This is entirely another "prohibition at Fat'h Makkah". It has nothing to do with Umar's Hadith. Sabrah neither mentioned Khaybar nor Hajj al-Wada, the other two places/times.


So, we are dealing with different sort of ahadith here in different contexts. So, again, the Hadith where Aban appeared is not corroborated by any sahih Hadith.


# Lastly, let me give you Hadith that seems to have corroborated it.


Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458H) documents:

Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf al-Aṣbahānī – Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Raḥman b. Yaḥyā al-Zuhrī al-Qāḍī – Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Ṣāigh – Abū Khālid al-Umawī – Manṣūr b. Dīnār – ‘Umar b. Muḥammad – Sālim b. ‘Abd Allāh – his father – ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, may Allāh be pleased with him:


‘Umar climbed the pulpit, and thanked Allāh and extolled Him. Then, he said, “What is the problem of men who are contracting the nikāḥ of this mut’ah despite that the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, had forbidden it? Take note: if anyone who has contracted its nikāḥ is brought to me, I will stone him.”

Source: Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn b. ‘Alī b. Mūsā al-Bayhaqī, Sunan al-Bayhaqī al-Kubrā (Makkah al-Mukarramah: Maktabah Dār al-Bāz; 1414 H) [annotator: Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 7, p. 206, # 13949


* Looking at the matn (context) of this Hadith, it is very similar to that of Ibn Majah that Aban appeared. And the Hadith chain does not contain the suspected Aban, therefore, IF all the narrators meet the criteria, then it will be a "corroborating Hadith" for the first. That is how you corroborate in this aspect.


# Unfortunately, the Hadith too is DA'EEF. None of them is of no use.


# In sha Allah, my next post will consider all the Sunni ahadith of prohibition at those three occasions.

sino:
Thirdly, weak hadiths are not discarded, they are not fabrications, even though they can not be used solely to derive rulings, they are used in other ways such as in biographies etc.

sino:


You have tried to claim that the hadith is weak due to Aban, due to him being disparaged by some, [u]but you quickly overlooked those who said he is trustworthy and no munkar narration can be traced to him...Yet you claim you are being sincere and using your aql?!

sino:

Secondly, where do you get the above that the context must be the same for it to be corroborated?!

sino:


"When a Hadith is reported with a weak chain, [b]but has the support of another suitable chain or other texts on the same topic, it can be rightfully judged as sound (hasan lighayrihi)[/b]." (See Muqaddimah Ibnus Salah, Sharh Nukhbah and Tadribur Rawi, vol.3 pg.72-75.)

AlBaqir:
^^^^
# Sino, let me give you another similar case which no one in the Hadith science dare to use.


1. Hadith which says, "I left two things...book of Allah and my Sunnah..."

* The Hadith is daeef due to one or two narrators in its chains.

Now, should we say because we have following ahadith, it corroborate the daeef Hadith above:


2. Sahih Bukhari, "I have left Quran..."


3. Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, "follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of Khulafah..."

# In hadith sciences, 2 & 3 can never corroborate 1 to the extent of making it acceptable. That is what your website just did.

sino:

The topic or the theme of the above narration is the prohibition of mut'ah by the Prophet (SAW), and secondarily, Umar (ra), banning mut'ah, based on the prohibition of the Prophet (SAW) AND NOT UMAR CLIMBING THE PULPIT. The Question is, did this narration go against any other narration with authentic chain?! The answer is NO! DO we have authentic narrations that states that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah?! YES! Do we have authentic narrations that states that Umar banned mut'ah based on the Prophet's prohibition?! YES!

sino:

Thirdly, weak hadiths are not discarded, they are not fabrications, even though they can not be used solely to derive rulings, they are used in other ways such as in biographies etc. Hence, if you are adamant that this narration is weak, then it doesn't remove the fact that we have other authentic narrations stating that the Prophet (SAW) prohibited mut'ah!

sino:


Abu Jafar the further added, “and what was related by Abba ibn K’ab, and Ibn Abbas, in their recitation with addition of “for a fixed time”, this is contrary to what is present in the Qur’an of the Muslims, and it is not appropriate for anyone to add into Allah’s book a thing which has no convincing report which there can be no excuse in going against.

AlBaqir:
# Ali's other Hadith is yet a big thorn on your throat, " Had Umar not banned MUT'AH, none would have commit Zina except wretched. "




* Hadith do not negate verse(s) of the Qur'an. Therefore, all your so-called sahih Hadith are nothing but myth.

Misyar marriage is similar to Muta marriage which is practiced in Iran. I went there in April and was offered a temporary wife for week. I wasn't sure of this was permitted. So their scholar showed me evidence that temporary marriages were allowed by the Prophet. I phoned home to ask Sheikh Qaradawi. He said yes Muta marriages were done but later stopped. Anyway, I was in the mood. So I did it to the pretty Iranian lady. She was a widowed aged 32. She was very lovely. I got photo of her on my Facebook. The divorce was automatic after 7 days. I paid her 400 dollars marriage gift. No strings attached. It was so easy. Hassle free.

Ssthorm:


Ok i hear u oo.. bt no b tday, e don tey...!! Make God jst help us.

Empiree:
Prohibiting the Mut’ah of Marriage

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 predetermined date.

AlBaqir:


THIRD: If Sunni agree that the verse is MUT'AH revealed, then how possibly can hadiths (that are even debatable) negate a verse of the Quran? It never and can never and will never happened. Qur'an is crystal clear on abrogation process. So going via Hadith is wasting of time.

Empiree:
The Ayah 24 in sura Nisai has been used by islamophobes to criticise islam of allowing raping women but this is not the case at all. Here is a little break down of the preceding phrase leading to the issue if 'mut'ah


“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.”The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,


إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَـنُكُمْ


“except those whom your right hands possess” except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

Empiree:
Thats why i dont waste my time either. I just wanted to confirm if the ayah was revealed about mut'ah. I do not believe the hadith can abrogate any verse of Quran. This has always been my position. Unfortunately upon research, i realized that there seems to be division over it. IF it was indeed verse of mut'ah the hadith which states that mut'ah was banned till qiyama will have to sit aside for a moment. This is the same with case of rajm.

Empiree:

And then we can move to next step as to whether MUTA"H is what is being practice by iranian agent

AlBaqir:


# Am afraid the above ALLEGED incident was nothing but shameful acts THE WAY IT IS DESCRIBED (having intercourse with them over there at war or captive zone), therefore I want to believe there is MORE to its explanation. The above description is 100% what ISIS and BOKO HARAM are practising. You capture women, killed their husbands or made them slaves, and then sleep with their wives.

# Now come to the issue leaving the Hadith aside for a while, these are MY UNDERSTANDING:

1. "those whom your right hands possess" - there is no debate on this. It refers to the female captives of war whether married or unmarried. In this case, Islam categorised and treat those captives as divorcees or widows therefore, the marriage tie with their husbands is broken. Some of the women are negotiable and return back to where she was captured. Whichever way, the captured woman needs to observe iddah period therefore, having sex with them on the spot of captivity is out of line.

A. Islam has abolished slavery therefore they are not to be kept or called as slave.

C. Naturally, it is extremely difficult for these kind of women to go into a new environment all alone - No house to live, no work, no money, no nothing. So, it is rational to remain with their bosses. What will become of their lives?

SUNNI is of interpretation that they are still slaves and you can have sex with them as you desire. There are lots of interesting ahadith here apart from the above.

[b]SHEIK IMRAN HUSSEIN SUBMISSION
3. Sheik Imran Hussein took this case of "those whom your right hands possess" into another controversial dimension.

A. For whatever reason I do not know, he did not put "captives" into consideration at all rather, he limit the phrase to "orphans" and extended it to what we have in this modern age in independent women, widows, divorcees, sphincters (earnestly looking for husband).

B. Sheik's theory is you can decided to "marry" such women with a second class conditions (IF SHE AGREES) compare to the full conditions of your "normal" wife(s). He cited an example of financial responsibility (for example if the man is running away from multiple marriage because of financial incapability). He argued you do not need to finance and take full responsibility of her as you do with your "real" wife.

# Truly there are women especially in this age that will definitely take and embrace such offer.

# Apart from the fact that, sheik's theory is absolutely not the outward meaning of the verse, the children born in this sheik's theory, who will be responsible for their upkeeps?

AlBaqir:


# The only division known to me is among the Sunni ulama and probably the Tabi'ieen. I haven't seen sahabah differences on this.

1. The Sunni ulama who argued the verse is mut'ahs based there evidence on Hadith of sahabah and Tabi'ieen

2. Sunni Ulama who argued against based their evidence ONLY on the other Tabi'ieen that argued otherwise.

# While I hate discussing Iranian affairs, I think it is high time to enlist the MUT'AH processes as well stated in Shi'a books of ahadith.