These are interesting points, but again I’m not sure lying takes one directly out of Islam. This is not to belittle the enormity of such criminal accusations but there is world upon world of difference between a heretic and an apostate. Also it is interesting to note (and anyone who has studied the text has probably had this incidence pointed out, although it should strike a careful reader on his own) that in the middle of Imam Tahawi’s `aqida is the declaration that the people of this creed hold as valid the wiping over kuffs in wuḍu — a fiqh point in the middle of a manual on beliefs! This is interpreted to be significant because accepting this issue demands that we accept the validity of the evidences from which this ruling is derived (proofs established through hadith).

Indeed Mut’ah is not a matter of ‘Aqîdah but fiqh. But the astonishing issue is that the Mut’ah Sayyidunâ Ibn ‘Abbas (رضي الله عنه) for example opined was far away of what the Twelver Shi`a propagate in their books falsely attributed to the A’immah of Ahl al-Bayt (رضي الله عنهم). Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas (رضي الله عنه) found Mut’ah only to be permissible in very problematic situations, and marrying only for 3 days it is also said that it is compared to the consummation of pork in very problematic situations.

Whereas the Mut’ah in the Twelver Shi`a sect is considered an act of great virtue and above this a Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله تعالى عليه واله وسلم)! And it is not considered an act that has to be only performed out of necessity. One may even perform Mut’ah for one hour (A’uthobilLâh). Refer to their ahâdîth:
http://www.tashayyu.org/hadiths/marriage/muta/desirability-of-muta

So one should be cautious about the different understanding of Mut’ah by some Sahâba (رضي الله عنهم) and the heretic Shi`a Twelver sect.

You can read Sh Hamza Yusuf’s article on this issue: http://www.zaytuna.org/WhoAretheDisbelievers.pdf

@Rand Talas,

Akhî I don’t know where you got your information from but Imâm Tabari (رحمه الله) refutes the belief that Nikah al-Mut’ah is halâl, rather he says the good is with the opinion that it’s harâm in his tafsîr. Also narrations from Ibn ‘Abbas (رضي الله عنه) saying that the verse 4:24 was with the addition “الى أجل مسمى” which can be found in his tafsîr too, he says that this qir’ah (recitation) is contradicting with the mushâf found with the Muslims and absolutely cannot relied upon since it’s not befitting that the Qur’ân contain verses which are not qat’i (certainty).

وقد دللنا على أن المتعة على غير النكاح الصحيح حرام في غير هذا الموضع من كتبنا بما أغنى عن إعادته في هذا الموضع. وأما رُوي عن أبيّ بن كعب وابن عباس من قراءتهما: «فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعُتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ إلى أجل مسمّى» فقراءة بخلاف ما جاءت به مصاحف المسلمين، وغير جائز لأحد أن يلحق في كتاب الله تعالى شيئاً لم يأت به الخبر القاطع العذر عمن لا يجوّز خلافه.

http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&Page=12&Size=1&LanguageId=1

this story is about Muta’ah and it is sad, but very interesting.

Please take a look.

[URL]http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Personal/personal22.htm[/URL]

Imam Tabari does not seem to have believed in the same kind of mut’ah that Shias practice, if he believed in it at all. Refer to his commentary on 4:24 in response to as-Suddi’s narrations, who advocated the Shia conception of mut’ah:

http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?nType=1&bm=&nSeg=0&l=arb&nSora=4&nAya=24&taf=TABARY&tashkeel=1

فَأَمَّا الَّذِي قَالَهُ السُّدِّيّ فَقَوْل لَا مَعْنَى لَهُ لِفَسَادِ الْقَوْل بِإِحْلَالِ جِمَاع اِمْرَأَة بِغَيْرِ نِكَاح وَلَا مِلْك يَمِي

“It shows that what as-Suddi had said is nonsense and meaningless, saying it’s halal to be with a woman without nikah or possession.”