Did Ali permit mutah?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Muta was never banned by Allah and His Messenger in the first place. Therfore, there was no need to re-instate a practice that was always allowed.

On the contrary you were taught with proof that it was Prophet(saws) who banned it till day of Judgement. If you want to turn blind eyed and stick to ignorance then its not our problem. We have established hujjah on you.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Yes this was during khaibar. However, that was a temporary ban even according to sunnis.

Don't forget that permission was temporary, and the banned. It was first. Then eventually it was again allowed again during extreme necessity, but banned till day of Qiyamah, as per Hadeeth of Prophet(saws).

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Saeed bin Jubair was a taba'i and a trustworthy scholar of fiqh.

Let's see what ibn kathir said about him

سعيد بن جبير الأسدي
الوالي مولاهم أبو محمد، ويقال أبو عبد الله، الكوفي المكي من أكابر أصحاب ابن عباس، كان من أئمة الإسلام في التفسير والفقه وأنواع العلوم وكثرة العمل الصالح، رحمه الله، وقد رأى خلقا من الصحابة، وروى عن جماعة منهم، وعنه خلق من التابعين، يقال إنه كان يقرأ القرآن في الصلاة فيما بين المغرب والعشاء ختمة تامة، وكان يقعد في الكعبة القعدة فيقرأ فيها الختمة، وربما قرأها في ركعة في جوف الكعبة، وروي عنه أنه ختم القرآن مرتين ونصفا في الصلاة في ليلة في الكعبة، وقال سفيان الثوري: عن عمرو بن ميمون، عن أبيه، قال: لقد مات سعيد بن جبير وما على وجه الأرض أحد إلا وهو محتاج إلى علمه.

Saeed bin Jubair, One of the great companions of Ibn Abbas, he was an Imam of Islam in Tafsir, Fiqh, and many types of knowledge. He did a lot of good deeds. May Allah have mercy on him. He saw many amongst sahaba and narrated from a group of them; and a lot of tabaeen narrated from him. Sufain thori said that Amr bin Maimoon from his father who said: When he died, there was none on Earth’s face who was not in need of him for knowledge

Yet this great taba'i scholar of yours did Muta. What do you have to say about that?

Sa’eed bin Jubair, believed that muta’ah is permissible according to the sharee’ah. However, Ahl Al-Sunnah do not refer to Saeed Ibn Jubair as a primary source for Islamic law, especially since it has been established in authentic hadiths, which can be found in the Saheehain, that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) prohibited muta’a.

Someone mentioned the statement of Sa’eed ibn Jubair in front of Ibrahim an-Nakhai, so he said, “What will you do with the statement of Sa’eed when you have the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Wasallam).” (al-Ahkam (6/293) of Ibn Hazm, its chain is authentic, The Issue of Doing Taqlid in the Deen (pg.38).

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Brother, this narration is Shadh, which is basically a type of weak narration. Why don't you quote in full what sheikh Tusi had to say about this narration?

Perhaps it would be better if we would give a proper definition of the term. A shaadh hadith has been explained as: What is narrated by a trustworthy narrator that goes against the narrations of the majority, and it was called shaadh because it is the opposite of mashhoor (popular).

Another explanation is: Our Fuqaha’ refer to shaadh narrations as those that were not applied by our sect, even if they were authentic and didn’t conflict with other narrations. See Mu’jam Mustalahat Al-Rijal wal Diraya p. 81 where the author attributes these two opinions to ten of the most famous books of Shia hadith terminology.

The definitions are clear and do not contradict the very fact that the narration is authentic according to the science of hadith.

So let's see what was the opinion of tusi as mentioned in al-istibsaar:

5 فأما ما رواه محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن أبي الجوزا عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن خالد عن زيد بن علي عن آبائه عن علي (عل) قال: حرم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لحوم الحمر الاهلية ونكاح المتعة.

فالوجه في هذه الرواية أن نحملها على التقية لانها موافقة لمذاهب العامة والاخبار الاولة موافقة لظاهر الكتاب وإجماع الفرقة المحقة على موجبها فيجب أن يكون العمل بها دون هذه الرواية الشاذة.

[al-istibsaar, vol 3, page 551]

and for this reason in this narration, we should understand this hadith as being upon taqiyya as it is in agreement with the madhab of aama (sunnis) whereas the hadiths before are in agreement with what comes from of the Book and Ijma` of the true sect, so one must act in accordance with them, and not this “shadh” narration.

This this is not a sufficient reason for weakening the hadith. Al-Khoei said, when examining a narration about menstruation, “…even though it is acceptable in the chain, it is corresponding to the views of the ‘aama (Sunnis) and the narrator from the Imam (as) is Al-Sakuni, and he is an ‘aami, which is why the narration is seen as one that came out of taqiyyah.” See book of Tahara 6/102, via Al-Jarh wal Ta’deel ‘ind Al-Shi’a Al-Imamiyah (p. 243-244).

Of course, as we can see, the narration of muta’a was not heard by a Sunni, but by Zaid bin Ali, and by a Zaidi from him. So, the point brought up by you is irrelevant to the context of the narration.

As for the argument of Taqiyyah then we respond like we have responded in the past, by saying that the Imam cannot have been in fear of narrating such narrations, since the scholars of Makkah like Ibn Juraij preached the permissibility of muta’ah during the time of Al-Sadiq.

[MuslimK]

Just to add: The Zaydi Shias and Ismaili Shias also have traditions attributed to Ali and Ahlulbayt where they narrated the prohibition of Muta marriage.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/02/20/mutah-eyes-ahl-al-bayt-ismaili-zaydi-shia-traditions/

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Just to add: The Zaydi Shias and Ismaili Shias also have traditions attributed to Ali and Ahlulbayt where they narrated the prohibition of Muta marriage.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/02/20/mutah-eyes-ahl-al-bayt-ismaili-zaydi-shia-traditions/

So it is Twelver Shia view which is at odd. Whereas different Muslim sects including Shia sects are in agreement that Mutah is forbidden.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

 - محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن معمر بن خلاد قال: سألت أبا الحسن الرضا (ع) عن الرجل يتزوج المرأ متعة فيحملها من بلد إلى بلد؟ فقال: يجوز النكاح الآخر ولا يجوز هذا
الكافي الجزء الخامس .. صفحة ...467

وقال عنه المجلسي فى مرآة العقول
صحيح
(مجلسي صحيح20/257

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.” [ Majlii said: Sahih, Mir’aat al-`Uqoul vol 20, page 257]

al-Majlisi commented in Mir’aat al-`Uqoul vol 20, page 257 :

ظاهره أنه سأل السائل عن حكم المتعة أجاب عليه السلام بعدم جواز أصل المتعة تقية

[What is apparent from it, is that the questioner asked about muta`a so he peace be upon him replied that muta`a is essentially prohibited as Taqiyyah…]

Majlisi claims that Imam said this when he was in fear, due to taqiyyah. We argue that this point is simply absurd, for some very major Sunni scholars in the past for a period of time believed in muta’ah, like Ibn Juraij. One should also be aware that Ibn Juraij is a contemporary of Ja’afar Al-Sadiq and both men were very much respected in their communities. It is in light of this information that we simply cannot accept that Ja’afar Al-Sadiq feared for his life, and thus taught the prohibition of muta’a, out of fear, since there is no reason to be afraid, since Ibn Juraij practiced it! All that Ja’afar Al-Sadiq needs to say is: O’ people, look! Ibn Juraij practices it! Why do you condemn me?!