Does this answer to Has mu'tah been forbidden via the Quran? (Sunni view) precisely address the question being asked? And why?
Does it need further improvement? And if so, how?
asked Jun 1, 2014 at 20:10
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
By the looks of it, the post took a fair stab at answering the literal question in the title (I lack the domain expertise to know how well it represents any actual Sunni view), but fails to actually answer anything in the question itself.
The question clearly goes in accepting the fact that Sunnis forbid mut'ah, and doesn't indicate any confusion on that point. The crux of the question is based on the apparent conflict between the clear hadith claiming that Allah has forbidden mut'ah and the lack of a clear corresponding prohibition in the Qur'an itself.
The answer, however, doesn't make any effort to address this aspect of the question; the whole post looks to be answering "Has mut'ah been forbidden via the Quran?" by tack of proving that it hasn't been forbidden at all. Which, as I read it, is not at all what the questioner wanted.
Perhaps the question should be fixed so the title better matches the actual body of the question. But the posted answer does not appear to be any answer to the actual question, and should probably be removed as such.
answered Jun 1, 2014 at 21:19
I now agree that my answer doesn't specifically answer the actual question, but what prompted me to answer it was the assumption that according to mainstream Sunni school, Sura Nissa:24 is interpreted as allowing Muta, and why I saw that the Sura Mu'minooncan:5-7 which is used as an evidence against mutah, could've not made Nissa:24 obsolete as it revealed much earlier. My assumption was, though, rejected.
Having said that, I agree that my answer doesn't fit the question! Should I now delete the answer myself or wait for community action?
