Ibn Abbas

[omar111]

Was Ibn Abbas a proshia?
He was pro mutah and used to wipe his feet in wudhu
He used the word raziyyat" (calamity) for the event of pen and paper, which is not used by any sahabi.

[Farid]

Was Ibn Abbas a proshia?
He was pro mutah and used to wipe his feet in wudhu
He used the word raziyyat" (calamity) for the event of pen and paper, which is not used by any sahabi.

That is a fun question.

These issues of fiqh are not exclusive to any sect. You will find other scholars holding that position who are very anti-Shia and yet shared these views with Ibn Abbas.

[Hani]

Was Ibn Abbas a proshia?
He was pro mutah and used to wipe his feet in wudhu
He used the word raziyyat" (calamity) for the event of pen and paper, which is not used by any sahabi.

Ibn `Abbas is not "pro-Shia" he himself is a Shia. The man is from the heads of Banu Hashim, he sided with `Ali until they finally disagreed during the civil-war when he left his side.

[Muhammad Tazin]

there are fiqhi differences among some sahaba, not all of them are concern of Shia or Anti-Shia

[omar111]

Which sunni had the same position on mutah and masah?
 Bukhari :

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»

Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”

 Musnaf Abi Sheybah Vol 1 as well:

حدثنا ابن علية عن روح بن القاسم عن عبد الله بن محمد بن عقيل عن الربيع ابنة معوذ ابن عفراء قالت : أتاني ابن عباس فسألني عن هذا الحديث تعني حديثها الذي ذكرت أنها { رأت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم توضأ وأنه غسل رجليه } قالت : فقال ابن عباس أبى الناس إلا الغسل ولا أجد في كتاب الله إلا المسح .
“Rabyya narrated: Ibn Abbas came to me & asked me about that hadith which I narrate that I saw the holy prophet wash his feet, so Ibn Abbas said: “The people insist to wash and I didn’t find in the book of Allah except wiping”
This is not a question of furu but of Aqeedah, as no Muslim will disobey the Prophet and Ibn Abbs describe the event of Thursday as a calamity. This is not a belief of Sunnis but of Shia
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اﷲُ عَنْهمَا قَالَ لَمَّا حُضِرَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ وَفِي الْبَیْتِ رِجَالٌ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ هلُمُّوا أَکْتُبْ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه فَقَالَ بَعْضُهمْ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اﷲِ قَدْ غَلَبَه الْوَجَعُ وَعِنْدَکُمُ الْقُرْآنُ حَسْبُنَا کِتَابُ اﷲِ فَاخْتَلَفَ أَهلُ الْبَیْتِ وَاخْتَصَمُوا فَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ قَرِّبُوا یَکْتُبُ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه وَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ غَیْرَ ذَلِکَ فَلَمَّا أَکْثَرُوا اللَّغْوَ وَالِاخْتِلَافَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ قُومُوا قَالَ عُبَیْدُ اﷲِ فَکَانَ یَقُولُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ إِنَّ الرَّزِیَّة کُلَّ الرَّزِیَّة مَا حَالَ بَیْنَ رَسُولِ اﷲِ وَبَیْنَ أَنْ یَکْتُبَ لَهمْ ذَلِکَ الْکِتَابَ لِاخْتِلَافِهمْ وَلَغَطِهمْ
Sunni try to defend it by saying that Ibn Abbas is referring to the illness of Prophet but Ibn Abbas is clearly calling not giving him a pen and paper as calamity, as done by shias.
A large group of Ali’s army was discontented with the conclusion of that arbitration, and broke off into a separate group that became known as the Khawarij or Kharijites. Ibn Abbas played a key role in convincing a large number of them to return to Ali; 20,000 of 24,000 according to some sources
After the battle of Basra, Ali appointed Abdullah ibn Abbas as the new governor of that city. Abdullah was an “understudy” of his master, Ali, and won great fame for his knowledge
Let us cut the joker fun crap and get seirous

[Farid]

On Mut'ah, we know that this was the opinion of Sa'eed bin Jubair and Ibn Juraij. In other words, this view is not exclusive to Shias early on, but with the passage of time, the prohibition of Mut'ah was agreed upon, due to the overwhelming evidence.

As for wiping the feet, the opinion is also held by Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Al-Sha'bi from the tabi'een. If I am not mistaken, this is also the opinion of Al-Tabari and Ibn Hazm. With time, this view died out also.

To be honest, it is very hard for anyone to make a connection between fiqh rulings and sects. That is why I feel that it is fruitless to discuss these matters, but rather, to focus on ideological differences.

This is not a question of furu but of Aqeedah, as no Muslim will disobey the Prophet and Ibn Abbs describe the event of Thursday as a calamity. This is not a belief of Sunnis but of Shia
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اﷲُ عَنْهمَا قَالَ لَمَّا حُضِرَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ وَفِي الْبَیْتِ رِجَالٌ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ هلُمُّوا أَکْتُبْ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه فَقَالَ بَعْضُهمْ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اﷲِ قَدْ غَلَبَه الْوَجَعُ وَعِنْدَکُمُ الْقُرْآنُ حَسْبُنَا کِتَابُ اﷲِ فَاخْتَلَفَ أَهلُ الْبَیْتِ وَاخْتَصَمُوا فَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ قَرِّبُوا یَکْتُبُ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه وَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ غَیْرَ ذَلِکَ فَلَمَّا أَکْثَرُوا اللَّغْوَ وَالِاخْتِلَافَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ قُومُوا قَالَ عُبَیْدُ اﷲِ فَکَانَ یَقُولُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ إِنَّ الرَّزِیَّة کُلَّ الرَّزِیَّة مَا حَالَ بَیْنَ رَسُولِ اﷲِ وَبَیْنَ أَنْ یَکْتُبَ لَهمْ ذَلِکَ الْکِتَابَ لِاخْتِلَافِهمْ وَلَغَطِهمْ
Sunni try to defend it by saying that Ibn Abbas is referring to the illness of Prophet but Ibn Abbas is clearly calling not giving him a pen and paper as calamity, as done by shias.

Indeed, Ibn Abbas' feelings are justified. He felt that the Ummah had lost the opportunity to receive some much needed guidance. I don't see how this makes Ibn Abbas a Shi'ee. The only way this could be understood is if Ibn Abbas held the view that the name of Ali was to be written as the next caliph. However, there are no evidences of this, and therefore, it cannot be understood that this is what Ibn Abbas wanted.

Furthermore, serving Ali does not make one Shi'ee ideologically. Allah knows that many that have served Ali ended up with Mu'awiyah in the end. Ibn Abbas went against Ali in his view of Mut'ah and his view of burning those that worshiped him. This is sufficient as evidence that he was not Shia.

[omar111]

On Mut'ah, we know that this was the opinion of Sa'eed bin Jubair and Ibn Juraij. In other words, this view is not exclusive to Shias early on, but with the passage of time, the prohibition of Mut'ah was agreed upon, due to the overwhelming evidence.

As for wiping the feet, the opinion is also held by Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Al-Sha'bi from the tabi'een. If I am not mistaken, this is also the opinion of Al-Tabari and Ibn Hazm. With time, this view died out also.

To be honest, it is very hard for anyone to make a connection between fiqh rulings and sects. That is why I feel that it is fruitless to discuss these matters, but rather, to focus on ideological differences.

This is not a question of furu but of Aqeedah, as no Muslim will disobey the Prophet and Ibn Abbs describe the event of Thursday as a calamity. This is not a belief of Sunnis but of Shia
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اﷲُ عَنْهمَا قَالَ لَمَّا حُضِرَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ وَفِي الْبَیْتِ رِجَالٌ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ هلُمُّوا أَکْتُبْ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه فَقَالَ بَعْضُهمْ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اﷲِ قَدْ غَلَبَه الْوَجَعُ وَعِنْدَکُمُ الْقُرْآنُ حَسْبُنَا کِتَابُ اﷲِ فَاخْتَلَفَ أَهلُ الْبَیْتِ وَاخْتَصَمُوا فَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ قَرِّبُوا یَکْتُبُ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَا تَضِلُّوا بَعْدَه وَمِنْهمْ مَنْ یَقُولُ غَیْرَ ذَلِکَ فَلَمَّا أَکْثَرُوا اللَّغْوَ وَالِاخْتِلَافَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اﷲِ قُومُوا قَالَ عُبَیْدُ اﷲِ فَکَانَ یَقُولُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ إِنَّ الرَّزِیَّة کُلَّ الرَّزِیَّة مَا حَالَ بَیْنَ رَسُولِ اﷲِ وَبَیْنَ أَنْ یَکْتُبَ لَهمْ ذَلِکَ الْکِتَابَ لِاخْتِلَافِهمْ وَلَغَطِهمْ
Sunni try to defend it by saying that Ibn Abbas is referring to the illness of Prophet but Ibn Abbas is clearly calling not giving him a pen and paper as calamity, as done by shias.

Indeed, Ibn Abbas' feelings are justified. He felt that the Ummah had lost the opportunity to receive some much needed guidance. I don't see how this makes Ibn Abbas a Shi'ee. The only way this could be understood is if Ibn Abbas held the view that the name of Ali was to be written as the next caliph. However, there are no evidences of this, and therefore, it cannot be understood that this is what Ibn Abbas wanted.

Furthermore, serving Ali does not make one Shi'ee ideologically. Allah knows that many that have served Ali ended up with Mu'awiyah in the end. Ibn Abbas went against Ali in his view of Mut'ah and his view of burning those that worshiped him. This is sufficient as evidence that he was not Shia.

I never said that Ibn abbas was Shia, I asked did he support shia.Shia also have also reported from Imam jaffar that Imam Jaffar scolded Ibn Abbas but that could be taqiyah
 ھکذا احکم اللہ لیلۃ ینزل فیھا امرہ ان جحدتھا بعدما سمعتھا من رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم فادخلک اللہ فی النار کما اعمی بصرک یوم جحدتھا علی ابن ابی طالب علیہ السلامقال فذلک عمی بصری ۔فاستضحکت ثم ترکتہ یومہ ذلک لساخفۃ عقلہ
(الکافی ج ۱ ص ۲۴۷)
Saeed bin Jubair was a tabii and One of the great companions of Ibn Abbas.Juraij was also a tabii.Many persons contracted Mutta in a period in which it was not legally prohibited by Omar, but no one gave a fatwa making it legal like Ibn abbas.
 “Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut’ah with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah al-Mut’ah). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is only when it is very badly needed and (qualified permanent) women are scarce, or similar cases.” On that, Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”
Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 5, Page 228

 
As for Ruju of Ibn Abbas,Ibn hijr denies it.And he says it is also the religion of shia/تح الباری، جلد 9، کتاب النکاح
 قال ابن بطال: روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة
 Sharh Mishkaat:
ولا تردد في أن ابن عباس هو الرجل المعرض به وكان قد كف بصره فلذا قال ابن الزبير كما أعمى أبصارهم وهذا إنما كان في حال خلافة عبد الله بن الزبير وذلك بعد وفاة على كرم الله وجهه فقد ثبت أنه مستمر القول على جوازها ولم يرجع

 As for masah,people got confused and some did both,wash and wipe.But Ibn Abbas gave fatwa that  the Quran states wiping - sahih (Haythami, Ibn Majah, Ahmad, Tabari,
 So you consider not giving the Oprophet a pen and paper as a calamity or a test?
 As for him supporting Ali khilafat.Why would Ali appoint him governor of busra, if he was against him?

[Farid]

Akhi, it seems that my misunderstanding is due to me misreading your first post.

Terminology is often the cause of confusion.

Today, as you know, the word Shia is used to describe Twelvers. We do not need to go into this since it is obvious that Ibn Abbas was not a Twelver.

Political tashayyu is used to refer to those that are of the Shia of Ali. All of Ali's close companions fall under this definition and Ibn Abbas is one of them.

It is important to be aware that the political Shias did not have a school of fiqh. Opinions that were later adopted into Twelver fiqh are based on the views that have been attributed to the Al Baqir and Al Sadiq. Ibn Abbas' views predates the attribution of the fiqh to Al Baqir and Al Sadiq as well. With this in mind, it cannot be argued that Ibn Abbas had Twelver opinions. A more correct statement (which is not something I am convinced of though) is to say that Twelver fiqh is derived from Ibn Abbas.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 5, Page 228

From the text itself it shows that the report is regarding Mutah al-Hajj NOT Mutah al-Nisa. Since it mentions Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) together. And we also know that there were  reports from Prophet(saws) stating Mutah al-Nisa was prohibited till qiyamah.

[omar111]

Bro Farid, I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I agree with your assessment of Ibn Abbas but sometimes it pains me to see a faqih like Ibn Abbas holding this opinion about muta in the presence of a clear prohibition.
And it aggravates me more when Sunnis try to defend it with wordplay, in the presence of a sahi hadith.
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying:
Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ نَاسًا - أَعْمَى اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ - يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ - يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ - فَنَادَاهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ فَلَعَمْرِي لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ - يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم - فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ فَوَاللَّهِ لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ فَأَخْبَرَنِي خَالِدُ بْنُ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ سَيْفِ اللَّهِ أَنَّهُ بَيْنَا هُوَ جَالِسٌ عِنْدَ رَجُلٍ جَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ فَاسْتَفْتَاهُ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ فَأَمَرَهُ بِهَا فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ مَهْلاً ‏.‏ قَالَ مَا هِيَ وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ فُعِلَتْ فِي عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ إِنَّهَا كَانَتْ رُخْصَةً فِي أَوَّلِ الإِسْلاَمِ لِمَنِ اضْطُرَّ إِلَيْهَا كَالْمَيْتَةِ وَالدَّمِ وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ الدِّينَ وَنَهَى عَنْهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَأَخْبَرَنِي رَبِيعُ بْنُ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيُّ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ قَالَ قَدْ كُنْتُ اسْتَمْتَعْتُ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم امْرَأَةً مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ بِبُرْدَيْنِ أَحْمَرَيْنِ ثُمَّ نَهَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَسَمِعْتُ رَبِيعَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ يُحَدِّثُ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ وَأَنَا جَالِسٌ ‏.‏
Reference    : Sahih Muslim 1406 k
In-book reference    : Book 16, Hadith 32
   
   

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Bro Farid, I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I agree with your assessment of Ibn Abbas but sometimes it pains me to see a faqih like Ibn Abbas holding this opinion about muta in the presence of a clear prohibition.
And it aggravates me more when Sunnis try to defend it with wordplay, in the presence of a sahi hadith.
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying:
Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ نَاسًا - أَعْمَى اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ - يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ - يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ - فَنَادَاهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ فَلَعَمْرِي لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ - يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم - فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ فَوَاللَّهِ لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ فَأَخْبَرَنِي خَالِدُ بْنُ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ سَيْفِ اللَّهِ أَنَّهُ بَيْنَا هُوَ جَالِسٌ عِنْدَ رَجُلٍ جَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ فَاسْتَفْتَاهُ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ فَأَمَرَهُ بِهَا فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ مَهْلاً ‏.‏ قَالَ مَا هِيَ وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ فُعِلَتْ فِي عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ إِنَّهَا كَانَتْ رُخْصَةً فِي أَوَّلِ الإِسْلاَمِ لِمَنِ اضْطُرَّ إِلَيْهَا كَالْمَيْتَةِ وَالدَّمِ وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ الدِّينَ وَنَهَى عَنْهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَأَخْبَرَنِي رَبِيعُ بْنُ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيُّ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ قَالَ قَدْ كُنْتُ اسْتَمْتَعْتُ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم امْرَأَةً مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ بِبُرْدَيْنِ أَحْمَرَيْنِ ثُمَّ نَهَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَسَمِعْتُ رَبِيعَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ يُحَدِّثُ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ وَأَنَا جَالِسٌ ‏.‏
Reference    : Sahih Muslim 1406 k
In-book reference    : Book 16, Hadith 32

It is important to recognize that Ibn Abbas’ ruling does not suggest the permissibility of mutah in all situations.

In Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra 7/204, we find that Abu Jamra narrated:

Ibn Abbas was asked about mutah, so he said it was permissible. A servant of his said, “That is during a time of war when there are not a lot of women and situations like that?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

The opinion of Ibn Abbas here is that mutah is only to be performed in situations that are similar to the situations in which mutah was first made permissible. The situation mentioned above is similar to that which Ibn Mas’ud described in Saheeh Muslim #3396:

We were on a military expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.

The reasoning of Ibn Abbas is a mystery. One can only speculate as to why he stuck to his opinion when the majority of the companions sided with the clear evidences for the prohibition of mutah. Perhaps the most reasonable possibility is that Ibn Abbas accepted that the Prophet – peace be upon him – prohibited mutah, but since he permitted it more than once it meant that it can be permitted during dire conditions. Of course, this ijtihad has no weight since the text from the Prophet – peace be upon him – is clear, and the text always takes precedence over ijtihad.

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.(Quran 4:59)

[omar111]

Bro Farid, I apologize if I have offended you in any way. I agree with your assessment of Ibn Abbas but sometimes it pains me to see a faqih like Ibn Abbas holding this opinion about muta in the presence of a clear prohibition.
And it aggravates me more when Sunnis try to defend it with wordplay, in the presence of a sahi hadith.
'Urwa b. Zabair reported that 'Abdullah b. Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) stood up (and delivered an address) in Mecca saying:
Allah has made blind the hearts of some people as He has deprived them of eyesight that they give religious verdict in favour of temporary marriage, while he was alluding to a person (Ibn 'Abbas). Ibn Abbas called him and said: You are an uncouth person, devoid of sense. By my life, Mut'a was practised during the lifetime of the leader of the pious (he meant Allah's Messenger, may peace be upon him), and Ibn Zubair said to him: just do it yourselves, and by Allah, if you do that I will stone you with your stones. Ibn Shihab said. Khalid b. Muhajir b. Saifullah informed me: While I was sitting in the company of a person, a person came to him and he asked for a religious verdict about Mut'a and he permitted him to do it. Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether). Ibn Shihab reported: Rabi' b. Sabra told me that his father (Sabra) said: I contracted temporary marriage with a woman of Banu 'Amir for two cloaks during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ; then he forbade us to do Mut'a. Ibn Shihab said: I heard Rabi' b. Sabra narrating it to Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz and I was sitting there.
وَحَدَّثَنِي حَرْمَلَةُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يُونُسُ، قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، قَامَ بِمَكَّةَ فَقَالَ إِنَّ نَاسًا - أَعْمَى اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ كَمَا أَعْمَى أَبْصَارَهُمْ - يُفْتُونَ بِالْمُتْعَةِ - يُعَرِّضُ بِرَجُلٍ - فَنَادَاهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّكَ لَجِلْفٌ جَافٍ فَلَعَمْرِي لَقَدْ كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ تُفْعَلُ عَلَى عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ - يُرِيدُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم - فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فَجَرِّبْ بِنَفْسِكَ فَوَاللَّهِ لَئِنْ فَعَلْتَهَا لأَرْجُمَنَّكَ بِأَحْجَارِكَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ فَأَخْبَرَنِي خَالِدُ بْنُ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ سَيْفِ اللَّهِ أَنَّهُ بَيْنَا هُوَ جَالِسٌ عِنْدَ رَجُلٍ جَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ فَاسْتَفْتَاهُ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ فَأَمَرَهُ بِهَا فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الأَنْصَارِيُّ مَهْلاً ‏.‏ قَالَ مَا هِيَ وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ فُعِلَتْ فِي عَهْدِ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ إِنَّهَا كَانَتْ رُخْصَةً فِي أَوَّلِ الإِسْلاَمِ لِمَنِ اضْطُرَّ إِلَيْهَا كَالْمَيْتَةِ وَالدَّمِ وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ الدِّينَ وَنَهَى عَنْهَا ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَأَخْبَرَنِي رَبِيعُ بْنُ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيُّ أَنَّ أَبَاهُ قَالَ قَدْ كُنْتُ اسْتَمْتَعْتُ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم امْرَأَةً مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ بِبُرْدَيْنِ أَحْمَرَيْنِ ثُمَّ نَهَانَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ ابْنُ شِهَابٍ وَسَمِعْتُ رَبِيعَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ يُحَدِّثُ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ وَأَنَا جَالِسٌ ‏.‏
Reference    : Sahih Muslim 1406 k
In-book reference    : Book 16, Hadith 32

It is important to recognize that Ibn Abbas’ ruling does not suggest the permissibility of mutah in all situations.

In Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra 7/204, we find that Abu Jamra narrated:

Ibn Abbas was asked about mutah, so he said it was permissible. A servant of his said, “That is during a time of war when there are not a lot of women and situations like that?” Ibn Abbas said, “Yes.”

The opinion of Ibn Abbas here is that mutah is only to be performed in situations that are similar to the situations in which mutah was first made permissible. The situation mentioned above is similar to that which Ibn Mas’ud described in Saheeh Muslim #3396:

We were on a military expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.

The reasoning of Ibn Abbas is a mystery. One can only speculate as to why he stuck to his opinion when the majority of the companions sided with the clear evidences for the prohibition of mutah. Perhaps the most reasonable possibility is that Ibn Abbas accepted that the Prophet – peace be upon him – prohibited mutah, but since he permitted it more than once it meant that it can be permitted during dire conditions. Of course, this ijtihad has no weight since the text from the Prophet – peace be upon him – is clear, and the text always takes precedence over ijtihad.

O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.(Quran 4:59)

Only a freed slave mentioned the condition and Ibn Abbas said yes, but this condition is not reported in other Ahadith on this issue.
Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»
Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”
Ibn Abbas defended the fatwa by saying that he did it, but he never said I only allowed it in harsh times.
But I will excuse Ibn Abbas this lapse. Because he performed countless services for the propagation of Islam and I also agree with Ibn Umar opinion of him.ws
 Ibn Umar (Tabarani in his Awsat and Hafith Ibn Hajr stated the chain was “strong” in Talkhis Al-Habir) reputed Ibn ‘Abbas’s verdict of permissibility saying that he was a “young boy” at the time and that the Nabi ‘alayhis salam allowed it due to hardship

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Only a freed slave mentioned the condition and Ibn Abbas said yes, but this condition is not reported in other Ahadith on this issue.

Ibn Abbas defended the fatwa by saying that he did it, but he never said I only allowed it in harsh times.
But I will excuse Ibn Abbas this lapse.

So what? The hadeeth is authentic.  And most likely in the incident you quoted, there was no need to mention the detailed conditions of Ibn Abbas's(ra) opinion, the narrator put it in general sense that ibn Abbas permitted it infront of Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah Ansari. However what Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah said, shows that he mentioned that conditiion upon which Ibn Abbas allowed it, but he even rejected this view of extreme condition.

Moreover, here are more proofs:

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

Imam Al-Khattabi (r) reports in his Ma’alim As-Sunan that Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (r) came to Ibn ‘Abbas and said that even the poets talk about how Ibn ‘Abbas allowed muta’ah to which Ibn ‘Abbas said, “SubhanAllah! I do not release this verdict, and it is not the case except as like that of maytah (carrion) is not permitted except to the one who is compelled (المضطر)!”

[omar111]

Only a freed slave mentioned the condition and Ibn Abbas said yes, but this condition is not reported in other Ahadith on this issue.

Ibn Abbas defended the fatwa by saying that he did it, but he never said I only allowed it in harsh times.
But I will excuse Ibn Abbas this lapse.

So what? The hadeeth is authentic.  And most likely in the incident you quoted, there was no need to mention the detailed conditions of Ibn Abbas's(ra) opinion, the narrator put it in general sense that ibn Abbas permitted it infront of Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah Ansari. However what Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah said, shows that he mentioned that conditiion upon which Ibn Abbas allowed it, but he even rejected this view of extreme condition.

Moreover, here are more proofs:

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

Imam Al-Khattabi (r) reports in his Ma’alim As-Sunan that Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (r) came to Ibn ‘Abbas and said that even the poets talk about how Ibn ‘Abbas allowed muta’ah to which Ibn ‘Abbas said, “SubhanAllah! I do not release this verdict, and it is not the case except as like that of maytah (carrion) is not permitted except to the one who is compelled (المضطر)!”

I am not sure at to what are you debating? You are saying that Ibn abbas gave a fatwa that Muta is permissable in harsh condition and trying to defend it.
So this is the position of Sunni ulmas.that mutah is permissible in certain conditions? If Ibn Abbas was right about this, why was he reprimanded by Ali, zubair and Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah? Even if he allowed Mutha in certain conditions, he was wrong and supported Shia.
Al khoei reports in muajam that Kashi brought many Ahadith in praise of Ibn Abbas! Abdullah bin Abbas was Jalil al-Qadr defending the Amir ul momnen
وقال السيد الخوئي في (المعجم 11/247): (( ذكر الكشي عدة روايات مادحة له... ولما مات غسل وكفن ثم صلى على سريرة وقال : فجاء طائران ابيضان فدخلا في كفنه فرأى الناس إنما هو فقهه فدفن )) . وقال في (ص 256) : (( والمتحصل مما ذكرنا ان عبد الله بن عباس كان جليل القدر مدافعاً عن أمير المؤمنين )) . وبنفس هذا الكلام ذكره كل من ترجم له , ارجع الى :(1) رجال الطوسي : 254 .(2) منتقى المقال : 197 .(3) رجال الكشي : 415 .(4) رجال ابن طاووس : 320 .(5) الدرجات الرفيعة : 102 .

Hanfi believe that Ibn Abbas ruled that Muta is Halal. فتاوی قاضی خان، ج 8 ص 858
What is the sanad of the two traditions posted here? Please post them in Arabic.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Only a freed slave mentioned the condition and Ibn Abbas said yes, but this condition is not reported in other Ahadith on this issue.

Ibn Abbas defended the fatwa by saying that he did it, but he never said I only allowed it in harsh times.
But I will excuse Ibn Abbas this lapse.

So what? The hadeeth is authentic.  And most likely in the incident you quoted, there was no need to mention the detailed conditions of Ibn Abbas's(ra) opinion, the narrator put it in general sense that ibn Abbas permitted it infront of Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah Ansari. However what Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Amrah said, shows that he mentioned that conditiion upon which Ibn Abbas allowed it, but he even rejected this view of extreme condition.

Moreover, here are more proofs:

In a tradition from As-Sunan Al-Kabeer (14166) by Al-Bayhaqi Ibn ‘Abbas (ra) responded to the criticism of Sa’eed bin Jubair on his view on Mut’ah by saying, “I did not intend that, neither did I give such ruling regarding Mut’ah. Mut’ah is not permitted except in case of necessity. Indeed it is like the dead meat, blood and the flesh of swine.”

Imam Al-Khattabi (r) reports in his Ma’alim As-Sunan that Sa’eed ibn Jubayr (r) came to Ibn ‘Abbas and said that even the poets talk about how Ibn ‘Abbas allowed muta’ah to which Ibn ‘Abbas said, “SubhanAllah! I do not release this verdict, and it is not the case except as like that of maytah (carrion) is not permitted except to the one who is compelled (المضطر)!”

I am not sure at to what are you debating? You are saying that Ibn abbas gave a fatwa that Muta is permissable in harsh condition and trying to defend it.

You are not sure because you are confused on your own stance.

You said:

Only a freed slave mentioned the condition and Ibn Abbas said yes, but this condition is not reported in other Ahadith on this issue.

So, I'm debating on the issue that Ibn Abbas considered Mutah HARAM just like meat of dead animal or flesh of swine.  But He considered it Halal in extreme cases just like flesh of swine becomes Halal.

And I'm not defending his odd(shaadh) Fatwa, which was rejected by notable and high ranking Sahaba of his time. And this is the position of Ahlus-sunnah.

Even if he allowed Mutha in certain conditions, he was wrong and supported Shia.

He was wrong, but he didn't support the Shia. Because Shia considered Mutah to be Halal and mustahab in general, however as per Ibn Abbas(RA), Mutah is like the meat of dead animal or flesh of swine which is Haraam.

If a person says that Alcohol consumption is Halal and Another Says that it is Haraam, except in extreme condition(as Quran says), then it doesn't mean that this person is supporting the former view.

Hanfi believe that Ibn Abbas ruled that Muta is Halal. فتاوی قاضی خان، ج 8 ص 858

Generally speaking everyone who has read the ahadeeth believes that, Ibn Abbas considered Mutah Haraam, but Halal in extreme conditions just like flesh of swine. In specific about this quote, then I cannot comment because commoners sometimes misunderstand text of Mutah, eventhough it is about Mutah al-Haj then use it for Mutah al-Nisa, like you did in one of your previous post.

What is the sanad of the two traditions posted here? Please post them in Arabic.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[omar111]

The words of slaves are ambiguous and no faqih will give a fatwa like that. This fatwa is open to interpratation.What is a badly need for sex,when so many sahabas were unmarried and Prophet advised fasting for the lust and not mutah. an overseas student may need to do Mut’ah as this is the only means to control his sexual desire. Some Sunnis do allow Mutah but cleverly cover it as only the male contracting mutah.So deception is allowed for them.Alll this confusion originates from the fatwa of Ibn Abbas
As we pointed out previously, if a person travels to a country to study or for work as an ambassador or for any other reason that allows him to travel to non-Muslim countries, it is permissible for him to conclude a marriage while having the intention to divorce when he returns if he needs to get married because he fears temptation.
Fatwas of Ibn Baz
   Content > Volume 5  > Marriage with the intention of divorce



   

To give example of Pork and dead animals is foolish. Because they are Haram for us but mutah was halal for us once and was then made haram.Now lack of food is known to cause death but lack of sex has never caused death so what is the necessity of Mutah?Even giving wine is necessary in some conditions but I have never heard lack of sex causing death!  If the prophet had made a thing Haram only he can provide exceptions in it and not scholars.
But can you give me a clear narration in which Ibn Abbas stated that he means a Mutta with certain condition. But there are several narrations where he allowed Mutta.You are just clutching at straws by interpreting a narration while no one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa.So all of these scholars are wrong?
 Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
 ضه فيها بأبي بكر وعمر : يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء أقول : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وتقولون : قال أبو بكر وعمر

When people would say to Ibn Abbas: 'You deem Mut'ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it', he would reply: 'May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar'.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176
Albani admits that Ibn Abbs allowed Mutah totally without any condition.
قال الشيخ.هـ وقال: (6/319): وجملة القول : أن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه روي عنه في المتعة ثلاثة أقوال : الأول : الاباحة مطلقا . الثاني : الاباحة عند الضرورة . والآخر : التحريم مطلقا وهذا مما لم يثبت عنه صراحة بخلاف القولين الأولين فهما ثابتان عنه . والله أعلم.ا.هـ
قال ابن بطال‏:‏ روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة‏.

Ibn Batal said: 'The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mut'ah is permissible. It is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. The permission of Mut'ah by him is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.'
Online Fath al Bari, Vol 9 Kitab al Nikah 
Ibn Kathir admits that Ibn abbas allowed mutah and mentions no conditins
’’أنہ رخص فیہ ابن عباس وطائفۃ من السلف/  مجموع الفتاوي جز ۳۲، ص ۹۳
 قال ابو عمر :اصحاب ابن عباس من اھل مکۃوالیمن کلھم یرون المتعۃ حلالا علی مذہب ابن عباس/ الجامع لاحکام القرآن ۔جز۔۵،صفحہ ۔۱۳۳،
Companions of Ibn Abbas and residents of mecca and yemen,believe that Mutah is halal and that is because of fatwa of Ibn abbas that Mutah is Halal.
It is not right that Ibn Abbas never supported shia,because Ibn Hijr stated that
 اجازۃالمتعۃعنہ اصح وھو مذہب الشیعۃ/ فتح الباری ۔جز ۔۹،ص ۔۱۷۳
It is correct that Ibn Abbas gave fatwa that Mutah is halal and permissible and it is also correct THAT THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA.
ومع ھذامارجع ابن عباس عما کان یذہب الیہ من اباحت الحمر والمتعۃ/ البدایۃوالنھایۃ۔جز ،۶ ،ص۔۲۷۸ ۵۔
Ibn Abbas deemed Mutah permissable and donkey meat allowed and he never reverted this position
Shawkani states that Ibn abbs states that Mutah is halal and permissible and THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA/ نیل الاوطار جز ۶، صفحہ ۱۶۲
 قال ابن عبد البر‏:‏ أصحاب ابن عباس من أهل مكة واليمن على إباحتها/  شرح موطا امام مالک علامہ زرقانی
The companions of ibn abbas in mecca believed that mutah is halal.
In the narration of sunan kubra,
الحسن بن عمارة is weak
1   أبو أحمد بن عدي الجرجاني   إلى الضعف أقرب منه إلى الصدق
2   أبو القاسم السهيلي   ضعيف بإجماع منهم
3   أبو بكر البزار   لا يحتج أهل العلم بحديثه إذا انفرد
4   أبو بكر البيهقي   ضعيف، ومرة: لا يحتج به، ومرة متروك
5   أبو حاتم الرازي   متروك الحديث
6   أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي   بلية الحسن التدليس عن الثقات ما وضع عليهم الضعفاء كان يسمع من موسى بن مطير وأبي العطوف وأبان بن أبي عياش وأضرابهم ثم يسقط أسماءهم ويرويها عن مشائخه الثقات فالتزقت به تلك الموضوعات

As for Mutah e haj
 حدثنی حامد بن عمر البکراوی ، حدثنا عبد الواحد ، عن عاصم ، عن أبی نضرۃ، قال : کنت عند جابر بن عبداللہ فأتاہ ات فقال : إن ابن عباس و ابن الزبیر اختلفا في المتعتین ، فقال جابر : فعلناھما مع رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ، ثم نھانا عنھما عمر
صحیح مسلم ، رقم ۱۲۴۹ و ۱۴۰۵

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The words of slaves are ambiguous and no faqih will give a fatwa like that. This fatwa is open to interpratation.

NO! The Fatwa is NOT open for interpretation, its your lack of understanding and ignorance of other ahadeeth, due to which you weren't able to see the clarity. The fact is that the previous Fatwa he gave was ambigious, hence he was question over this issue, for which he gave a clear answer.

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”

You say ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted Mut`ah right? but as you know that the Prophet (SAWS) only permitted it in Jihad as a Rukhsa back then and then it was banned forever, in this case let me show you with further clarification what kind of Mut`ah ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted:

قال أبو بكر الإسماعيلي في المستخرج: أنبأ يوسف القاضي: ثنا عمرو بن مرزوق: أنبأ شعبة، عن أبي جمرة، عن ابن عباس: أنه سُئِلَ عن متعة النساء، فقال مولى له: إنما كان ذلك في الجهاد والنساء قليل؟!. قال: فقال ابن عباس: صدق

Abu Bakr al-Isma`ilee in his Mustakhraj: Yusuf al-Qadi told, `Amro bin Marzuq told us, Shu`bah told us, from abi Hamzah, from ibn `Abbas (ra): That he was asked about the Mut`ah of women, so a Mawla of his asked him: "It is only in Jihad and women are few!?" ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "That's true."

Grading: Sahih.

Now to explain you in more detail, that what the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas(ra) is explicit is because people during his time were well aware of the fact that, Prophet(SAWS) ALLOWED Mutah ONLY as RUKHSA, it was NOT ALLOWED IN GENERAL, hence the slave of Ibn Abbas(ra) clarified with him, that he is allowing it in the similar way as well, that is during Jihad when there is scarcity of women, to which Ibn Abbas(ra) said: Yes, and he compared it with dead meat and flesh of swine, as I will discuss this later.

What is a badly need for sex,when so many sahabas were unmarried and Prophet advised fasting for the lust and not mutah.

Your foolish arguments shows that you have not research this topic well. Read this hadeeth, you'll understand the situation, and what Prophet(SAWS) advised to people in that situation.

 Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.

Did you see now the situation and the advice of Prophet(SAWS) which he gave as RUKHSAH?

an overseas student may need to do Mut’ah as this is the only means to control his sexual desire. Some Sunnis do allow Mutah but cleverly cover it as only the male contracting mutah.So deception is allowed for them.Alll this confusion originates from the fatwa of Ibn Abbas
As we pointed out previously, if a person travels to a country to study or for work as an ambassador or for any other reason that allows him to travel to non-Muslim countries, it is permissible for him to conclude a marriage while having the intention to divorce when he returns if he needs to get married because he fears temptation.
Fatwas of Ibn Baz
   Content > Volume 5  > Marriage with the intention of divorce

Marriage with intention of divorce
(1) Majority of scholars deemed this kind of marriage contract valid and allowed; meaning the involved parties did not commit fornication or adultery since such intention is neither disclosed nor known to the bride and her guardian.

(2) Despite of the validity of the contract, should a man establish the will in his heart to divorce the woman he intends to marry after certain part of time, he is by that commits a major sin because such intention is nothing but a cheating, misleading, decieving and taking advantage of people's good will.

The Fiqh Concil of the Islamic World League disallowed this kind of marriages due to the sinful intention and the unthinkable harm and suffering caused to the wife and her family. [See the resolutions of the Council dated 8/12/2006]

The following is the quote of the issued resolution
Quote:
منع المجمع الفقهي الإسلامي برابطة العالم الإسلامي في دورته الثامنة عشــرة المنعقــدة بمكة المكرمة في الفترة من 10-14/3/1427هـ الذي يــوافقه 8-12/4/2006م هذا الزواج حين نظر في موضوع: (عقود النكاح المستحدثة) جاء ما يلي: " الزواج بنية الطلاق وهو: زواج توافرت فيه أركان النكاح وشروطه وأضمر الزوج في نفسه طلاق المرأة بعد مدة معلومة كعشرة أيام، أو مجهولة ؛ كتعليق الزواج على إتمام دراسته أو تحقيق الغرض الذي قدم من أجله.
وهذا النوع من النكاح على الرغم من أن جماعة من العلماء أجازوه، إلا أن المجمع يرى منعه ؛ لاشتماله على الغش والتدليس. إذ لو علمت المرأة أو وليها بذلك لم يقبلا هذا العقد. ولأنه يؤدي إلى مفاسد عظيمة وأضرار جسيمة تسيء إلى سمعة المسلمين"
_
http://islamport.com/k/mjl/6401/53861.htm

To give example of Pork and dead animals is foolish. Because they are Haram for us but mutah was halal for us once and was then made haram.

Again an argument out of jahl. These things were halal too until the ruling of their prohibition came. If this doesn't gets in your brain, then let me give you the example of alcohol. It was allowed at a time in Islam, however it was prohibited later. Now, can you use this Rukhsah given for alcohol, as an evidence that Alcohol is permissible? No.

Now lack of food is known to cause death but lack of sex has never caused death so what is the necessity of Mutah?Even giving wine is necessary in some conditions but I have never heard lack of sex causing death!

This is the situation Ibn Abbas(ra) was talking about.

Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.

However, it is true that Ibn Abbas was criticized for this view by scholars.

Imam Al-Khattaby criticized the legal view of Ibn `Abbas. After citing the narration that Ibn Al-Qayyim related from him, he said: This makes it clear that he, i.e. Ibn `Abbas, concluded his view on the grounds of Qiyas (analogical deduction) comparing Mut`ah marriage to eating unlawful food for a person in a case of pressing necessity. However, it is an incorrect Qiyas, because necessity in this case, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, is not equal to a case of needing food that preserves life and whose lack could result in death. Unlike food, Mut`ah marriage is a matter of overcoming desire, which is possible to restrain or stop through Sawm (Fasting) and treatment. Thus, they are not of equal stand with regard to the legally considered necessity." End of Al-Khattaby's speech. It is also cited and even affirmed by Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Hazimy in his book [Al-I`tibar fi Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh min Al-Athar].
http://alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaSubjects.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=2365&PageID=4012&SectionID=14&SubjectPageTitlesID=26668&MarkIndex=12&0

But can you give me a clear narration in which Ibn Abbas stated that he means a Mutta with certain condition. But there are several narrations where he allowed Mutta.You are just clutching at straws by interpreting a narration while no one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa.So all of these scholars are wrong?

You need to use a little common sense to understand this issue.

Prophet(saws) allowed Mutah was Ruksah under extreme case, therefore when Ibn Abbas did so, then he did in the same manner, as was done by Prophet(saws). However, his Fatwa was ambiguous ad misunderstood. Hence his slave asked question that there remains ambiguity, on which Ibn Abbas clarified that he was in extreme case, as reported in Sahih Bukhari.

Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
 ضه فيها بأبي بكر وعمر : يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء أقول : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وتقولون : قال أبو بكر وعمر

When people would say to Ibn Abbas: 'You deem Mut'ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it', he would reply: 'May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar'.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176

I refuted this quote from you previously, saying these quotes are for Mutah al Haj not Mutah al-Nisa. So why this deception again? Aren't you ashamed of this cheap deceit of mixing Mutah al hajj with Mutah al nisa?

Albani admits that Ibn Abbs allowed Mutah totally without any condition.
قال الشيخ.هـ وقال: (6/319): وجملة القول : أن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه روي عنه في المتعة ثلاثة أقوال : الأول : الاباحة مطلقا . الثاني : الاباحة عند الضرورة . والآخر : التحريم مطلقا وهذا مما لم يثبت عنه صراحة بخلاف القولين الأولين فهما ثابتان عنه . والله أعلم.ا.هـ
قال ابن بطال‏:‏ روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة‏.

Ibn Batal said: 'The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mut'ah is permissible. It is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. The permission of Mut'ah by him is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.'
Online Fath al Bari, Vol 9 Kitab al Nikah 
Ibn Kathir admits that Ibn abbas allowed mutah and mentions no conditins
’’أنہ رخص فیہ ابن عباس وطائفۃ من السلف/  مجموع الفتاوي جز ۳۲، ص ۹۳
 قال ابو عمر :اصحاب ابن عباس من اھل مکۃوالیمن کلھم یرون المتعۃ حلالا علی مذہب ابن عباس/ الجامع لاحکام القرآن ۔جز۔۵،صفحہ ۔۱۳۳،
Companions of Ibn Abbas and residents of mecca and yemen,believe that Mutah is halal and that is because of fatwa of Ibn abbas that Mutah is Halal.
It is not right that Ibn Abbas never supported shia,because Ibn Hijr stated that
 اجازۃالمتعۃعنہ اصح وھو مذہب الشیعۃ/ فتح الباری ۔جز ۔۹،ص ۔۱۷۳
It is correct that Ibn Abbas gave fatwa that Mutah is halal and permissible and it is also correct THAT THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA.
ومع ھذامارجع ابن عباس عما کان یذہب الیہ من اباحت الحمر والمتعۃ/ البدایۃوالنھایۃ۔جز ،۶ ،ص۔۲۷۸ ۵۔
Ibn Abbas deemed Mutah permissable and donkey meat allowed and he never reverted this position

As explained earlier,  Prophet(saws) allowed Mutah as Ruksah under extreme case, therefore when Ibn Abbas did so, then he did in the same manner, as was done by Prophet(saws). However, his Fatwa was ambiguous and misunderstood. Hence his slave asked question that there remains ambiguity, on which Ibn Abbas clarified that he was in extreme case, as reported in Sahih Bukhari.

Therefore, when the scholars mention that Ibn Abbas considered Mutah Halal, then it is to be understood that it was done in the same way as Prophet(SAWS) did, that is Ruksah under extreme condition. And yes this Fatwa matches the Shia because they too agree that in extreme cases Mutah is permissible. However, the view of Ibn Abbas differs with Shias on the issue that SHias allow it without any condition too.

Allow me to quote several scholars in support of my view, and some even believed that Ibn Abbas retracted from his Fatwa, which ofcourse isn't going to go down your throat. So, how about me asking the same question, are all these scholars wrong?

1.Ibn Al-Qayyim said: "Is it - the prohibition of Mut`ah marriage - permanently fixed or is it like eating the flesh of a dead animal and blood and marrying a slave girl, which may be permitted under the compulsion of necessity and fear of being harmed in religion or body? The latter proposition is the reasoning adopted by Ibn `Abbas when he judged it as permissible under the compulsion of necessity, but when people practiced it widely without restraint, going beyond the condition of necessity, he recanted his Fatwa and retracted it." End of what Ibn Al-Qayyim stated in Zad Al-Ma`ad.

2. Imam Al-Khattaby criticized the legal view of Ibn `Abbas. After citing the narration that Ibn Al-Qayyim related from him, he said: This makes it clear that he, i.e. Ibn `Abbas, concluded his view on the grounds of Qiyas (analogical deduction) comparing Mut`ah marriage to eating unlawful food for a person in a case of pressing necessity. However, it is an incorrect Qiyas, because necessity in this case, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, is not equal to a case of needing food that preserves life and whose lack could result in death. Unlike food, Mut`ah marriage is a matter of overcoming desire, which is possible to restrain or stop through Sawm (Fasting) and treatment. Thus, they are not of equal stand with regard to the legally considered necessity." End of Al-Khattaby's speech. It is also cited and even affirmed by Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Hazimy in his book [Al-I`tibar fi Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh min Al-Athar].

3. The author of Tah-dhib Sunan Abu Dawud (a commentary on a Hadith collection classified by jurisprudential themes) said, "He, i.e. Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), adopted this approach and permitted Mut`ah marriage in cases of irresistible necessity or need, but he did not permit it absolutely. However, when people practiced it widely, he retracted his view. Indeed, he held the view that the prohibition is only applied to a person who is not in need of it (i.e., Mut`ah marriage).

4. Abu Bakr Al-Jassas is also among those who criticized this view of Ibn `Abbas. He said in his book [Ahkam Al-Qur'an (vol.2, p.148)]: "It is reported from Ibn `Abbas that he made it, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, equal in ruling to consuming a dead animal, flesh of swine, and blood, which is not permissible except in cases of necessity. However, this is impossible (the comparison), because the legally-considered necessity that makes unlawful matters lawful is inexistent in Mut`ah marriage. That is because the legally-considered necessity that permits the consumption of a dead animal and blood is that which could result in the loss of life i.e. when a person does not eat.
We are sure, nevertheless, that a person does not fear death or loss of any of his limbs due to refraining from sexual intercourse. It is not permissible in the state of prosperity and (at the same time) there is no urgent necessity for it, so it is proven that it is forbidden and the saying that it may be permitted under the compulsion of necessity, like eating the flesh of a dead animal or blood, becomes impossible (as it has no place). This is then a paradox and impossible statement. Indeed, this narration ascribed to Ibn `Abbas could most likely be a misreported statement, because he (may Allah be merciful to him) is very well versed in jurisprudence to be unaware of that. Hence, the authentic narration is that which speaks of his prohibiting and preventing people from it after he retracted his former view (of permitting it in cases of urgent necessity)." End of Abu Bakr Al-Jassas' citation.

5. Al-Tirmidhy, who said in his Jami` (collection of Hadiths) in the chapter entitled: "Tahrim Nikah Al-Mut`ah [Prohibition of Mut`ah marriage]", vol.5, p. 49; after mentioning that the adopted practice, according to the scholars among the Sahabah (Companions) of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and others, is the prohibition of Mut`ah marriage: It is only ascribed to Ibn `Abbas that he gave some Rukhsah (concession) to practice Mut`ah marriage and then retracted his view and said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade it.


http://alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaSubjects.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=2365&PageID=4012&SectionID=14&SubjectPageTitlesID=26668&MarkIndex=12&0

Shawkani states that Ibn abbs states that Mutah is halal and permissible and THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA/ نیل الاوطار جز ۶، صفحہ ۱۶۲
 قال ابن عبد البر‏:‏ أصحاب ابن عباس من أهل مكة واليمن على إباحتها/  شرح موطا امام مالک علامہ زرقانی
The companions of ibn abbas in mecca believed that mutah is halal.

al-Imam al-Awza'ee said there are two wrong Fatwas that have spread in each region, he says:

أبا عمرو الأوزاعي يقول لا نأخذ من قول أهل العراق خصلتين ومن قول أهل مكة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل المدينة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل الشام خصلتين فأما أهل العراق فتأخير السحور وشرب النبيذ وأما أهل مكة فالمتعة والصرف وأما أهل المدينة فإتيان النساء في أدبارهن والسماع وأما أهل الشام فبيع العصير وأخذ الديوان
[We do not take two matters from the people of `Iraq, and two matters from the people of Makkah, and two matters from the people of Madinah, and two matters from the people of Sham. As for the `Iraqis it is delaying Suhour and drinking wine, as for the Mekkans it is al-Mut`ah and al-Sarf, ect...]

This means that some wrong Fatwas were spread in each area, this is why they were rejected.

In the narration of sunan kubra,
الحسن بن عمارة is weak
1   أبو أحمد بن عدي الجرجاني   إلى الضعف أقرب منه إلى الصدق
2   أبو القاسم السهيلي   ضعيف بإجماع منهم
3   أبو بكر البزار   لا يحتج أهل العلم بحديثه إذا انفرد
4   أبو بكر البيهقي   ضعيف، ومرة: لا يحتج به، ومرة متروك
5   أبو حاتم الرازي   متروك الحديث
6   أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي   بلية الحسن التدليس عن الثقات ما وضع عليهم الضعفاء كان يسمع من موسى بن مطير وأبي العطوف وأبان بن أبي عياش وأضرابهم ثم يسقط أسماءهم ويرويها عن مشائخه الثقات فالتزقت به تلك الموضوعات

There was another report in the same page 14167, which you missed.
يث عن ختنه عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس أنه قال في المتعة : " هي حرام كالميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير

Here Layth bin Abi sulaym is disputable, however he can be considered Sadooq, weakness in him in not major.  [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
This can be used as supportive evidence for the authentic reports which state that Ibn Abbas permitted Mutah under extreme condition.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The words of slaves are ambiguous and no faqih will give a fatwa like that. This fatwa is open to interpratation.

NO! The Fatwa is NOT open for interpretation, its your lack of understanding and ignorance of other ahadeeth, due to which you weren't able to see the clarity. The fact is that the previous Fatwa he gave was ambigious, hence he was question over this issue, for which he gave a clear answer.

5116 – حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي جَمْرَةَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ: سُئِلَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ «فَرَخَّصَ»، فَقَالَ لَهُ مَوْلًى لَهُ: إِنَّمَا ذَلِكَ فِي الحَالِ الشَّدِيدِ، وَفِي النِّسَاءِ قِلَّةٌ؟ أَوْ نَحْوَهُ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: «نَعَمْ»
Ibn ‘Abbas was asked regarding temporary marriage with women so he allowed it. On this one of his slaves said, “It is only in harsh condition, when there is lack of women?” or something of that sort. So Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Yes.”

You say ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted Mut`ah right? but as you know that the Prophet (SAWS) only permitted it in Jihad as a Rukhsa back then and then it was banned forever, in this case let me show you with further clarification what kind of Mut`ah ibn `Abbas (ra) permitted:

قال أبو بكر الإسماعيلي في المستخرج: أنبأ يوسف القاضي: ثنا عمرو بن مرزوق: أنبأ شعبة، عن أبي جمرة، عن ابن عباس: أنه سُئِلَ عن متعة النساء، فقال مولى له: إنما كان ذلك في الجهاد والنساء قليل؟!. قال: فقال ابن عباس: صدق

Abu Bakr al-Isma`ilee in his Mustakhraj: Yusuf al-Qadi told, `Amro bin Marzuq told us, Shu`bah told us, from abi Hamzah, from ibn `Abbas (ra): That he was asked about the Mut`ah of women, so a Mawla of his asked him: "It is only in Jihad and women are few!?" ibn `Abbas (ra) said: "That's true."

Grading: Sahih.

Now to explain you in more detail, that what the Fatwa of Ibn Abbas(ra) is explicit is because people during his time were well aware of the fact that, Prophet(SAWS) ALLOWED Mutah ONLY as RUKHSA, it was NOT ALLOWED IN GENERAL, hence the slave of Ibn Abbas(ra) clarified with him, that he is allowing it in the similar way as well, that is during Jihad when there is scarcity of women, to which Ibn Abbas(ra) said: Yes, and he compared it with dead meat and flesh of swine, as I will discuss this later.

What is a badly need for sex,when so many sahabas were unmarried and Prophet advised fasting for the lust and not mutah.

Your foolish arguments shows that you have not research this topic well. Read this hadeeth, you'll understand the situation, and what Prophet(SAWS) advised to people in that situation.

 Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.

Did you see now the situation and the advice of Prophet(SAWS) which he gave as RUKHSAH?

an overseas student may need to do Mut’ah as this is the only means to control his sexual desire. Some Sunnis do allow Mutah but cleverly cover it as only the male contracting mutah.So deception is allowed for them.Alll this confusion originates from the fatwa of Ibn Abbas
As we pointed out previously, if a person travels to a country to study or for work as an ambassador or for any other reason that allows him to travel to non-Muslim countries, it is permissible for him to conclude a marriage while having the intention to divorce when he returns if he needs to get married because he fears temptation.
Fatwas of Ibn Baz
   Content > Volume 5  > Marriage with the intention of divorce

Marriage with intention of divorce
(1) Majority of scholars deemed this kind of marriage contract valid and allowed; meaning the involved parties did not commit fornication or adultery since such intention is neither disclosed nor known to the bride and her guardian.

(2) Despite of the validity of the contract, should a man establish the will in his heart to divorce the woman he intends to marry after certain part of time, he is by that commits a major sin because such intention is nothing but a cheating, misleading, decieving and taking advantage of people's good will.

The Fiqh Concil of the Islamic World League disallowed this kind of marriages due to the sinful intention and the unthinkable harm and suffering caused to the wife and her family. [See the resolutions of the Council dated 8/12/2006]

The following is the quote of the issued resolution
Quote:
منع المجمع الفقهي الإسلامي برابطة العالم الإسلامي في دورته الثامنة عشــرة المنعقــدة بمكة المكرمة في الفترة من 10-14/3/1427هـ الذي يــوافقه 8-12/4/2006م هذا الزواج حين نظر في موضوع: (عقود النكاح المستحدثة) جاء ما يلي: " الزواج بنية الطلاق وهو: زواج توافرت فيه أركان النكاح وشروطه وأضمر الزوج في نفسه طلاق المرأة بعد مدة معلومة كعشرة أيام، أو مجهولة ؛ كتعليق الزواج على إتمام دراسته أو تحقيق الغرض الذي قدم من أجله.
وهذا النوع من النكاح على الرغم من أن جماعة من العلماء أجازوه، إلا أن المجمع يرى منعه ؛ لاشتماله على الغش والتدليس. إذ لو علمت المرأة أو وليها بذلك لم يقبلا هذا العقد. ولأنه يؤدي إلى مفاسد عظيمة وأضرار جسيمة تسيء إلى سمعة المسلمين"
_
http://islamport.com/k/mjl/6401/53861.htm

To give example of Pork and dead animals is foolish. Because they are Haram for us but mutah was halal for us once and was then made haram.

Again an argument out of jahl. These things were halal too until the ruling of their prohibition came. If this doesn't gets in your brain, then let me give you the example of alcohol. It was allowed at a time in Islam, however it was prohibited later. Now, can you use this Rukhsah given for alcohol, as an evidence that Alcohol is permissible? No.

And mind your language, A Sahabi of Prophet(SAWS) also compared Mutah with Flesh of Swine.

Al-Musannaf” (14033) through Az-Zuhri from Khalid bin Muhajir:
عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي الزُّهْرِي، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ الْمُهَاجِرِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ قَالَ: أَرْخَصَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ فِي الْمُتْعَةِ، فَقَالَ لَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ: «مَا هَذَا يَا أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ؟» فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: فُعِلَتْ مَعَ إِمَامِ الْمُتَّقِينَ. فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ: «اللَّهُمَّ غُفْرًا، إِنَّمَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ رُخْصَةً كَالضُّرُورَةِ إِلَى الْمَيْتَةِ، وَالدَّمِ، وَلَحْمِ الْخِنْزِيرِ، ثُمَّ أَحْكَمَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى الدِّينَ بَعْدُ»
Ibn ‘Abbas permitted Mut’ah so Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said to him, “What is this O Ibn ‘Abbas?” He said, “I did it during the time of the leader of pious.” Ibn Abi ‘Amrah said, “May Allah forgive. Indeed Mut’ah was an exemption like in the case when the dead meat, blood or the flesh of swine is necessary. Then Allah completed his religion after that.”

Now lack of food is known to cause death but lack of sex has never caused death so what is the necessity of Mutah?Even giving wine is necessary in some conditions but I have never heard lack of sex causing death!

This is the situation Ibn Abbas(ra) was talking about.

Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq:

عَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، عَنْ قَيسٍ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " كُنَّا نَغْزُو مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَتَطُولُ غُرْبَتُنَا , فَقُلْنَا : أَلا نَتَخَصَّى يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ فَنَهَانَا ، ثُمَّ رَخَّصَ أَنْ نَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ بِالشَّيْءِ ، ثُمَّ نَهَانَا عَنْهَا يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ، وَعَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ " .

[From ibn `Uyaynah, from Isma`eel ibn abi Khalid, from Qays bin `Awf, from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (ra) that he said: "We used to make Ghazawat with the messenger (SAWS), so our absence would be very long (from home), so we said: "Should we castrate ourselves O messenger of Allah?" So he forbade us from it and made us a Rukhsa that we can marry the woman for a temporary time in exchange for something, then he forbade us from it on the day of Khaybar and the meat of the domestic donkey.]

grading: Sahih.

However, it is true that Ibn Abbas was criticized for this view by scholars.

Imam Al-Khattaby criticized the legal view of Ibn `Abbas. After citing the narration that Ibn Al-Qayyim related from him, he said: This makes it clear that he, i.e. Ibn `Abbas, concluded his view on the grounds of Qiyas (analogical deduction) comparing Mut`ah marriage to eating unlawful food for a person in a case of pressing necessity. However, it is an incorrect Qiyas, because necessity in this case, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, is not equal to a case of needing food that preserves life and whose lack could result in death. Unlike food, Mut`ah marriage is a matter of overcoming desire, which is possible to restrain or stop through Sawm (Fasting) and treatment. Thus, they are not of equal stand with regard to the legally considered necessity." End of Al-Khattaby's speech. It is also cited and even affirmed by Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Hazimy in his book [Al-I`tibar fi Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh min Al-Athar].
http://alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaSubjects.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=2365&PageID=4012&SectionID=14&SubjectPageTitlesID=26668&MarkIndex=12&0

But can you give me a clear narration in which Ibn Abbas stated that he means a Mutta with certain condition. But there are several narrations where he allowed Mutta.You are just clutching at straws by interpreting a narration while no one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa.

You need to use a little common sense to understand this issue.

Prophet(saws) allowed Mutah was Ruksah under extreme case, therefore when Ibn Abbas did so, then he did in the same manner, as was done by Prophet(saws). However, his Fatwa was ambiguous ad misunderstood. Hence his slave asked question that there remains ambiguity, on which Ibn Abbas clarified that he was in extreme case, as reported in Sahih Bukhari.

Ibn Abbas narrated “Rasulullah (s) gave us the order to practise Mut’ah, it existed, Urwah ibn Zubayr said, ‘Abu Bakr and Umar stopped this’, Ibn Abbas responded saying ‘I’m telling you what Rasulullah (s) deemed halaal and you’re telling me what Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did, I see that you shall be destroyed”.
 ضه فيها بأبي بكر وعمر : يوشك أن تنزل عليكم حجارة من السماء أقول : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وتقولون : قال أبو بكر وعمر

When people would say to Ibn Abbas: 'You deem Mut'ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it', he would reply: 'May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar'.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176

I refuted this quote from you previously, saying these quotes are for Mutah al Haj not Mutah al-Nisa. So why this deception again? Aren't you ashamed of this cheap deceit of mixing Mutah al hajj with Mutah al nisa?

Albani admits that Ibn Abbs allowed Mutah totally without any condition.
قال الشيخ.هـ وقال: (6/319): وجملة القول : أن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه روي عنه في المتعة ثلاثة أقوال : الأول : الاباحة مطلقا . الثاني : الاباحة عند الضرورة . والآخر : التحريم مطلقا وهذا مما لم يثبت عنه صراحة بخلاف القولين الأولين فهما ثابتان عنه . والله أعلم.ا.هـ
قال ابن بطال‏:‏ روى أهل مكة واليمن عن ابن عباس إباحة المتعة، وروي عنه الرجوع بأسانيد ضعيفة وإجازة المتعة عنه أصح، وهو مذهب الشيعة‏.

Ibn Batal said: 'The People of Mecca and Yemen narrated from Ibn Abbas that Mut'ah is permissible. It is narrated by a weak chain that Ibn Abbas revoked its permissibility. The permission of Mut'ah by him is more correct and this is the doctrine of the Shia.'
Online Fath al Bari, Vol 9 Kitab al Nikah 
Ibn Kathir admits that Ibn abbas allowed mutah and mentions no conditins
’’أنہ رخص فیہ ابن عباس وطائفۃ من السلف/  مجموع الفتاوي جز ۳۲، ص ۹۳
 قال ابو عمر :اصحاب ابن عباس من اھل مکۃوالیمن کلھم یرون المتعۃ حلالا علی مذہب ابن عباس/ الجامع لاحکام القرآن ۔جز۔۵،صفحہ ۔۱۳۳،
Companions of Ibn Abbas and residents of mecca and yemen,believe that Mutah is halal and that is because of fatwa of Ibn abbas that Mutah is Halal.
It is not right that Ibn Abbas never supported shia,because Ibn Hijr stated that
 اجازۃالمتعۃعنہ اصح وھو مذہب الشیعۃ/ فتح الباری ۔جز ۔۹،ص ۔۱۷۳
It is correct that Ibn Abbas gave fatwa that Mutah is halal and permissible and it is also correct THAT THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA.
ومع ھذامارجع ابن عباس عما کان یذہب الیہ من اباحت الحمر والمتعۃ/ البدایۃوالنھایۃ۔جز ،۶ ،ص۔۲۷۸ ۵۔
Ibn Abbas deemed Mutah permissable and donkey meat allowed and he never reverted this position

As explained earlier,  Prophet(saws) allowed Mutah as Ruksah under extreme case, therefore when Ibn Abbas did so, then he did in the same manner, as was done by Prophet(saws). However, his Fatwa was ambiguous and misunderstood. Hence his slave asked question that there remains ambiguity, on which Ibn Abbas clarified that he was in extreme case, as reported in Sahih Bukhari.

Therefore, when the scholars mention that Ibn Abbas considered Mutah Halal, then it is to be understood that it was done in the same way as Prophet(SAWS) did, that is Ruksah under extreme condition. And yes this Fatwa matches the Shia because they too agree that in extreme cases Mutah is permissible. However, the view of Ibn Abbas differs with Shias on the issue that SHias allow it without any condition too.

You are just clutching at straws by interpreting a narration while no one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa.So all of these scholars are wrong?

Since your stupidity in failing to understand a clear hadeeth where Ibn Abbas gave Fatwa under condition, has been be explained. Now lets bust your bubble of ignorance that NO ONE ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional Fatwa.

Allow me to quote several scholars in support of my view, and some even believed that Ibn Abbas retracted from his Fatwa, which ofcourse isn't going to go down your throat. So, how about me asking the same question, are all these scholars wrong?

1.Ibn Al-Qayyim said: "Is it - the prohibition of Mut`ah marriage - permanently fixed or is it like eating the flesh of a dead animal and blood and marrying a slave girl, which may be permitted under the compulsion of necessity and fear of being harmed in religion or body? The latter proposition is the reasoning adopted by Ibn `Abbas when he judged it as permissible under the compulsion of necessity, but when people practiced it widely without restraint, going beyond the condition of necessity, he recanted his Fatwa and retracted it." End of what Ibn Al-Qayyim stated in Zad Al-Ma`ad.

2. Imam Al-Khattaby criticized the legal view of Ibn `Abbas. After citing the narration that Ibn Al-Qayyim related from him, he said: This makes it clear that he, i.e. Ibn `Abbas, concluded his view on the grounds of Qiyas (analogical deduction) comparing Mut`ah marriage to eating unlawful food for a person in a case of pressing necessity. However, it is an incorrect Qiyas, because necessity in this case, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, is not equal to a case of needing food that preserves life and whose lack could result in death. Unlike food, Mut`ah marriage is a matter of overcoming desire, which is possible to restrain or stop through Sawm (Fasting) and treatment. Thus, they are not of equal stand with regard to the legally considered necessity." End of Al-Khattaby's speech. It is also cited and even affirmed by Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Hazimy in his book [Al-I`tibar fi Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh min Al-Athar].

3. The author of Tah-dhib Sunan Abu Dawud (a commentary on a Hadith collection classified by jurisprudential themes) said, "He, i.e. Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), adopted this approach and permitted Mut`ah marriage in cases of irresistible necessity or need, but he did not permit it absolutely. However, when people practiced it widely, he retracted his view. Indeed, he held the view that the prohibition is only applied to a person who is not in need of it (i.e., Mut`ah marriage).

4. Abu Bakr Al-Jassas is also among those who criticized this view of Ibn `Abbas. He said in his book [Ahkam Al-Qur'an (vol.2, p.148)]: "It is reported from Ibn `Abbas that he made it, i.e. Mut`ah marriage, equal in ruling to consuming a dead animal, flesh of swine, and blood, which is not permissible except in cases of necessity. However, this is impossible (the comparison), because the legally-considered necessity that makes unlawful matters lawful is inexistent in Mut`ah marriage. That is because the legally-considered necessity that permits the consumption of a dead animal and blood is that which could result in the loss of life i.e. when a person does not eat.
We are sure, nevertheless, that a person does not fear death or loss of any of his limbs due to refraining from sexual intercourse. It is not permissible in the state of prosperity and (at the same time) there is no urgent necessity for it, so it is proven that it is forbidden and the saying that it may be permitted under the compulsion of necessity, like eating the flesh of a dead animal or blood, becomes impossible (as it has no place). This is then a paradox and impossible statement. Indeed, this narration ascribed to Ibn `Abbas could most likely be a misreported statement, because he (may Allah be merciful to him) is very well versed in jurisprudence to be unaware of that. Hence, the authentic narration is that which speaks of his prohibiting and preventing people from it after he retracted his former view (of permitting it in cases of urgent necessity)." End of Abu Bakr Al-Jassas' citation.

5. Al-Tirmidhy, who said in his Jami` (collection of Hadiths) in the chapter entitled: "Tahrim Nikah Al-Mut`ah [Prohibition of Mut`ah marriage]", vol.5, p. 49; after mentioning that the adopted practice, according to the scholars among the Sahabah (Companions) of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and others, is the prohibition of Mut`ah marriage: It is only ascribed to Ibn `Abbas that he gave some Rukhsah (concession) to practice Mut`ah marriage and then retracted his view and said that the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade it.


http://alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaSubjects.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=2365&PageID=4012&SectionID=14&SubjectPageTitlesID=26668&MarkIndex=12&0

Shawkani states that Ibn abbs states that Mutah is halal and permissible and THIS IS THE RELEGION OF SHIA/ نیل الاوطار جز ۶، صفحہ ۱۶۲
 قال ابن عبد البر‏:‏ أصحاب ابن عباس من أهل مكة واليمن على إباحتها/  شرح موطا امام مالک علامہ زرقانی
The companions of ibn abbas in mecca believed that mutah is halal.

al-Imam al-Awza'ee said there are two wrong Fatwas that have spread in each region, he says:

أبا عمرو الأوزاعي يقول لا نأخذ من قول أهل العراق خصلتين ومن قول أهل مكة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل المدينة خصلتين ولا من قول أهل الشام خصلتين فأما أهل العراق فتأخير السحور وشرب النبيذ وأما أهل مكة فالمتعة والصرف وأما أهل المدينة فإتيان النساء في أدبارهن والسماع وأما أهل الشام فبيع العصير وأخذ الديوان
[We do not take two matters from the people of `Iraq, and two matters from the people of Makkah, and two matters from the people of Madinah, and two matters from the people of Sham. As for the `Iraqis it is delaying Suhour and drinking wine, as for the Mekkans it is al-Mut`ah and al-Sarf, ect...]

This means that some wrong Fatwas were spread in each area, this is why they were rejected.

In the narration of sunan kubra,
الحسن بن عمارة is weak
1   أبو أحمد بن عدي الجرجاني   إلى الضعف أقرب منه إلى الصدق
2   أبو القاسم السهيلي   ضعيف بإجماع منهم
3   أبو بكر البزار   لا يحتج أهل العلم بحديثه إذا انفرد
4   أبو بكر البيهقي   ضعيف، ومرة: لا يحتج به، ومرة متروك
5   أبو حاتم الرازي   متروك الحديث
6   أبو حاتم بن حبان البستي   بلية الحسن التدليس عن الثقات ما وضع عليهم الضعفاء كان يسمع من موسى بن مطير وأبي العطوف وأبان بن أبي عياش وأضرابهم ثم يسقط أسماءهم ويرويها عن مشائخه الثقات فالتزقت به تلك الموضوعات

There was another report in the same page 14167, which you missed.
يث عن ختنه عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس أنه قال في المتعة : " هي حرام كالميتة والدم ولحم الخنزير

Here Layth bin Abi sulaym is disputable, however he can be considered Sadooq, weakness in him in not major. 
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
This report can be used as supportive evidence for the authentic reports which state that Ibn Abbas permitted Mutah under extreme condition.

[omar111]

You are confused about the issue. Prophet didn’t allow mutah only for Jihad.Sahaba contracted it in peacetime. When Mauwiyah went on a journey to Taif, he did Mutah marriage
 
 ذكر عبد الرزاق الصنعاني (المتوفى: 211هـ) في كتابه المصنف ج7 ص496 رقم الحديث 14021
تحقيق: حبيب الرحمن الأعظمي
الناشر: المجلس العلمي- الهند
الطبعة: الثانية، 1403

عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: لَأَوَّلُ مَنْ سَمِعْتُ مِنْهُ الْمُتْعَةَ صَفْوَانُ بْنُ يَعْلَى قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي، عَنْ يَعْلَى، أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ ، اسْتَمْتَعَ بِامْرَأَةٍ بِالطَّائِفِ فَأَنْكَرَتْ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ، فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فَذَكَرَ لَهُ بَعْضُنَا، فَقَالَ لَهُ: «نَعَمْ». فَلَمْ يَقِرَّ فِي نَفْسِي حَتَّى قَدِمَ جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، فَجِئْنَاهُ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ فَسَأَلَهُ الْقَوْمُ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، ثُمَّ ذَكَرُوا لَهُ الْمُتْعَةَ، فَقَالَ: " نَعَمْ، اسْتَمْتَعْنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرَ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ فِي آخِرِ خِلَافَةِ عُمَرَ، اسْتَمْتَعَ عَمْرُو بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ بِامْرَأَةٍ سَمَّاهَا جَابِرٌ فَنَسِيتُهَا، فَحَمَلَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ فَدَعَاهَا فَسَأَلَهَا، فَقَالَتْ: نَعَمْ قَالَ: مَنْ أَشْهَدَ؟ قَالَ: عَطَاءٌ لَا أَدْرِي قَالَتْ: أُمِّي أُمَّ وَلِيَّهَا قَالَ: فَهَلَّا غَيْرَهُمَا قَالَ: خَشِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ دَغْلًا الْآخَرُ، قَالَ عَطَاءٌ، وَسَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ: «يَرْحَمُ اللَّهُ عُمَرَ مَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ إِلَّا رُخْصَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ رَحِمَ بِهَا أُمَّةَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَلَوْلَا نَهْيُهُ عَنْهَا مَا احْتَاجَ إِلَى الزِّنَا إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ» قَالَ: كَأَنِّي وَاللَّهِ أَسْمَعُ قَوْلَهُ: إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ - عَطَاءٌ الْقَائِلُ - قَالَ عَطَاءٌ: " فَهِيَ الَّتِي فِي سُورَةِ النِّسَاءِ: {فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ} [النساء: 24] إِلَى كَذَا وَكَذَا مِنَ الْأَجَلِ عَلَى كَذَا وَكَذَا لَيْسَ يُتَشَاوَرُ " قَالَ: «بَدَا لَهُمَا أَنْ يَتَرَاضِيَا بَعْدَ الْأَجَلِ، وَأَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا فَنَعَمْ، وَلَيْسَ بِنِكَاحٍ»

سند الرواية :
1 ] ابن جريج : قال عنه الذهبي في سير اعلام النبلاء ج6 ص325

ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ الأُمَوِيُّ عَبْدُ المَلِكِ بنُ عَبْدِ العَزِيْزِ بنِ جُرَيْجٍ *
الإِمَامُ، العَلاَّمَةُ، الحَافِظُ، شَيْخُ الحَرَمِ، أَبُو خَالِدٍ، وَأَبُو الوَلِيْدِ القُرَشِيُّ، الأُمَوِيُّ، المَكِّيُّ، صَاحِبُ التَّصَانِيْفِ
وَأَوَّلُ مَنْ دَوَّنَ العِلْمَ بِمَكَّةَ. مَوْلَى أُمَيَّةَ بنِ خَالِدٍ

2 ] عطاء : قال عنه الذهبي في سير اعلام النبلاء ج5 ص78

عَطَاءُ بنُ أَبِي رَبَاحٍ أَسْلَمَ القُرَشِيُّ مَوْلاَهُم
الإِمَامُ، شَيْخُ الإِسْلاَمِ، مُفْتِي الحَرَمِ، أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ القُرَشِيُّ مَوْلاَهُم، المَكِّيُّ. يُقَالَ: وَلاَؤُهُ لِبَنِي جُمَحٍ، كَانَ مِنْ مُوَلَّدِي الجَنَدِ ، وَنَشَأَ بِمَكَّةَ. وُلِدَ: فِي أَثْنَاءِ خِلاَفَةِ عُثْمَانِ

3 ] صفوان بن يعلى
قال عنه ابن حبان في كتابه مشاهير علماء الامصار ص141
صفوان بن يعلى بن أمية القرشي من خيار أهل مكة ومتقنيهم

4 ] يعلى :

صحابي قال عنه ، أبو نصر البخاري الكلاباذي (المتوفى: 398هـ) في كتابه الهداية والإرشاد في معرفة أهل الثقة والسداد ج2 ص820 
وَحَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثٌ، عَنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، سَبْرَةَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَذِنَ لَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالْمُتْعَةِ فَانْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَرَجُلٌ إِلَى امْرَأَةٍ مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ كَأَنَّهَا بَكْرَةٌ عَيْطَاءُ فَعَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهَا أَنْفُسَنَا فَقَالَتْ مَا تُعْطِي فَقُلْتُ رِدَائِي ‏.‏ وَقَالَ صَاحِبِي رِدَائِي ‏.‏ وَكَانَ رِدَاءُ صَاحِبِي أَجْوَدَ مِنْ رِدَائِي وَ كُنْتُ أَشَبَّ مِنْهُ فَإِذَا نَظَرَتْ إِلَى رِدَاءِ صَاحِبِي أَعْجَبَهَا وَإِذَا نَظَرَتْ إِلَىَّ أَعْجَبْتُهَا ثُمَّ قَالَتْ أَنْتَ وَرِدَاؤُكَ يَكْفِينِي ‏.‏ فَمَكَثْتُ مَعَهَا ثَلاَثًا ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ كَانَ عِنْدَهُ شَىْءٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ النِّسَاءِ الَّتِي يَتَمَتَّعُ فَلْيُخَلِّ سَبِيلَهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏/Sahih Muslim 1406

 حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالْمُتْعَةِ عَامَ الْفَتْحِ حِينَ دَخَلْنَا مَكَّةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ نَخْرُجْ مِنْهَا حَتَّى نَهَانَا عَنْهَا‏.‏
Abd al-Malik b. Rabi' b. Sabraal-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father who narrated it on the authority of his father (i e. 'Abd al-Malik's grandfather, Sabura al-Juhanniy Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did come out of it but he forbade us to do it. Sahih Muslim 1406

 This is the fatwa of bin baz on divorce marriages

 
You are simply deranged, you first taunt me on objecting to swine and deadmeat and then produce khatib and others who are also making the points I made. Maybe khatib was a rafdhi!

 Then you call a Hadith mentioning Abubakr and Umar as a Hadith for Hajj e Tammatu and that Hajj was prohibited by Umar so it was allowed at the time of abubakr but Muta e nisa was not
  Narrated Imran: “We performed hajj al-tamattu in the life time of Allah’s Apostle and then the Qur'an was revealed [endorsing hajj al-tamattu], and somebody (i.e. Umar) said what he wished [regarding hajj al-tamattu] according to his own opinion.” (Sahih Bukhari 2.26.642)
When people would say to Ibn Abbas: 'You deem Mut'ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it', he would reply: 'May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar'.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176

 As for his retracting his fatwa, this ruju mentioned in your quotes is denied by most scholars.
ومع ھذامارجع ابن عباس عما کان یذہب الیہ من اباحت الحمر والمتعۃ/البدایۃوالنھایۃ۔جز ،۶ ،ص۔۲۷۸ ۵
قد ثبت انہ مستمر القول علی جوازھا ولم یرجع الی قول علی/مرقاۃ المفاتیح شرح مشکاۃ المصابیح جز ۵ ص ۲۰۷۵
علامہ ابن ھمام حنفی: فقد ثبت انہ مستمر القول علی جوازھا ولم یرجع الی قول علی
  علامہ ابن حجر عسقلانی قول ابن بطال نقل ہوتے ہوئے کہتے ہے وروی عنہ الرجوع باسانید ضعیفۃ
All narrations about the ruju of ibn abbas are weak. فتح الباری ، جز ۹، ص ۱۷۳،
علامہ ابن حجر ہیثمی : وحکایۃ الرجوع عنہ لم تصح
But your twisted mind only allows the narration which suits you.
In ilm ul Hadith, Jarah precedes Tadeel.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You are confused about the issue. Prophet didn’t allow mutah only for Jihad.Sahaba contracted it in peacetime. When Mauwiyah went on a journey to Taif, he did Mutah marriage

عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: لَأَوَّلُ مَنْ سَمِعْتُ مِنْهُ الْمُتْعَةَ صَفْوَانُ بْنُ يَعْلَى قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي، عَنْ يَعْلَى، أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ ، اسْتَمْتَعَ بِامْرَأَةٍ بِالطَّائِفِ فَأَنْكَرَتْ ذَلِكَ عَلَيْهِ، فَدَخَلْنَا عَلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فَذَكَرَ لَهُ بَعْضُنَا، فَقَالَ لَهُ: «نَعَمْ». فَلَمْ يَقِرَّ فِي نَفْسِي حَتَّى قَدِمَ جَابِرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، فَجِئْنَاهُ فِي مَنْزِلِهِ فَسَأَلَهُ الْقَوْمُ عَنْ أَشْيَاءَ، ثُمَّ ذَكَرُوا لَهُ الْمُتْعَةَ، فَقَالَ: " نَعَمْ، اسْتَمْتَعْنَا عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرَ، حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ فِي آخِرِ خِلَافَةِ عُمَرَ، اسْتَمْتَعَ عَمْرُو بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ بِامْرَأَةٍ سَمَّاهَا جَابِرٌ فَنَسِيتُهَا، فَحَمَلَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ عُمَرَ فَدَعَاهَا فَسَأَلَهَا، فَقَالَتْ: نَعَمْ قَالَ: مَنْ أَشْهَدَ؟ قَالَ: عَطَاءٌ لَا أَدْرِي قَالَتْ: أُمِّي أُمَّ وَلِيَّهَا قَالَ: فَهَلَّا غَيْرَهُمَا قَالَ: خَشِيَ أَنْ يَكُونَ دَغْلًا الْآخَرُ، قَالَ عَطَاءٌ، وَسَمِعْتُ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ يَقُولُ: «يَرْحَمُ اللَّهُ عُمَرَ مَا كَانَتِ الْمُتْعَةُ إِلَّا رُخْصَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ رَحِمَ بِهَا أُمَّةَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَلَوْلَا نَهْيُهُ عَنْهَا مَا احْتَاجَ إِلَى الزِّنَا إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ» قَالَ: كَأَنِّي وَاللَّهِ أَسْمَعُ قَوْلَهُ: إِلَّا شَقِيٌّ - عَطَاءٌ الْقَائِلُ - قَالَ عَطَاءٌ: " فَهِيَ الَّتِي فِي سُورَةِ النِّسَاءِ: {فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ} [النساء: 24] إِلَى كَذَا وَكَذَا مِنَ الْأَجَلِ عَلَى كَذَا وَكَذَا لَيْسَ يُتَشَاوَرُ " قَالَ: «بَدَا لَهُمَا أَنْ يَتَرَاضِيَا بَعْدَ الْأَجَلِ، وَأَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا فَنَعَمْ، وَلَيْسَ بِنِكَاحٍ»

Firstly, since you know urdu then read this thread where the chain of this report has been discussed, there it is argued that it is weak.
http://forum.mohaddis.com/threads/%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%DB%81-%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%86%DB%92-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%DB%81-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%9F.27481/

But for arguments sake, lets say that it is authentic, even then the narration of Abd Al-Razaq in his Musanaf #14026 suggests that Mu’awiyah performed mutah during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him. Like Jabir, Amr bin Huraith, and others, it seems that he was not aware that mutah was prohibited by the Prophet – peace be upon him. Since, Muawiyah(ra) accepted Islam openly after conquest of Makkah then its seems to be most likely that he wasn't aware of the ruling Mutah being prohibited.  And it is an agreed upon principle that, the personal actions of a companion of the Prophet – peace be upon him – cannot be used to legalize an act if there is clear evidence of prohibition.

On the contrary, what I gave you is the occasion at which permisibility of Mutah as Rukhsah was given, in this event you need to focus on the situation wherein we find that Sahaba were in such need that they wanted to castrate themselves at that time Mutah was granted permission as Rukhsah. If it was generally allowed as you claim, then there was no need for Sahaba to ask this question of castrating themselves.

Ibn Masu’d narrated (Muslim #3396): We were on a expedition with the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him -, without any women. So we said, “Shall we castrate ourselves?” He forbade us from doing so, then permitted us to get married for a stipulated time, at the price of a garment.

Let me quote you a scholar's opinion as well;

Al-Hazimi in Al-I’itibar (p. 137) explains: This ruling was permissible in the early days of Islam and the Prophet – peace be upon him – , permitted it due to the reasons mentioned by Ibn Mas’ud, during their travels, and it is not known to us that the Prophet – peace be upon him – permitted it while they were in their homes, which is why he forbade them from practicing this more than once at different times.

One interesting aspect from the narration is that Ibn Mas’ud points out that mutah became “permitted”. This implies that it was forbidden before the aforementioned expedition. This suggests that the companions knew of such a marriage, but that it was not made lawful to them until this occasion.

This is even supported by the words of this Sahabi,

Ibn Abu 'Amrah al-Ansari (Allah be pleased with him) said to him: Be gentle. It was permitted in- the early days of Islam, (for one) who was driven to it under the stress of necessity just as (the eating of) carrion and the blood and flesh of swine and then Allah intensified (the commands of) His religion and prohibited it (altogether).[Sahih Muslim, Book 16, Hadith 32]

So here we find one more Sahabi affirming the fact that it was allowed when there was necessity during the time of Prophet(SAWS).

وَحَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثٌ، عَنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، سَبْرَةَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ أَذِنَ لَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالْمُتْعَةِ فَانْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَرَجُلٌ إِلَى امْرَأَةٍ مِنْ بَنِي عَامِرٍ كَأَنَّهَا بَكْرَةٌ عَيْطَاءُ فَعَرَضْنَا عَلَيْهَا أَنْفُسَنَا فَقَالَتْ مَا تُعْطِي فَقُلْتُ رِدَائِي ‏.‏ وَقَالَ صَاحِبِي رِدَائِي ‏.‏ وَكَانَ رِدَاءُ صَاحِبِي أَجْوَدَ مِنْ رِدَائِي وَ كُنْتُ أَشَبَّ مِنْهُ فَإِذَا نَظَرَتْ إِلَى رِدَاءِ صَاحِبِي أَعْجَبَهَا وَإِذَا نَظَرَتْ إِلَىَّ أَعْجَبْتُهَا ثُمَّ قَالَتْ أَنْتَ وَرِدَاؤُكَ يَكْفِينِي ‏.‏ فَمَكَثْتُ مَعَهَا ثَلاَثًا ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ كَانَ عِنْدَهُ شَىْءٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ النِّسَاءِ الَّتِي يَتَمَتَّعُ فَلْيُخَلِّ سَبِيلَهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏/Sahih Muslim 1406

 حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ سَبْرَةَ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِالْمُتْعَةِ عَامَ الْفَتْحِ حِينَ دَخَلْنَا مَكَّةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ نَخْرُجْ مِنْهَا حَتَّى نَهَانَا عَنْهَا‏.‏
Abd al-Malik b. Rabi' b. Sabraal-Juhanni reported on the authority of his father who narrated it on the authority of his father (i e. 'Abd al-Malik's grandfather, Sabura al-Juhanniy Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) permitted us to contract temporary marriage in the Year of Victory, as we entered Mecca, and we did come out of it but he forbade us to do it. Sahih Muslim 1406
Refer the above response.

This is the fatwa of bin baz on divorce marriages

I don't know if you have problems with understanding issues which have been thoroughly refuted, because you keep bringing them as if you didn't understand the previous refutation. Here the issue of Marriage with intention of divorce has been thoroughly explained, and it even encompasses the Fatwa of Ibn Baaz, that the marriage will be considered legal, its not that the marriage is illegal. However the below Fatwa discusses the issue in further detail, that the Man alone is committing a major sin by this act. If you again fail to understand it due to your poor understanding then feel free to ask what you didn't understand.

Marriage with intention of divorce
منع المجمع الفقهي الإسلامي برابطة العالم الإسلامي في دورته الثامنة عشــرة المنعقــدة بمكة المكرمة في الفترة من 10-14/3/1427هـ الذي يــوافقه 8-12/4/2006م هذا الزواج حين نظر في موضوع: (عقود النكاح المستحدثة) جاء ما يلي: " الزواج بنية الطلاق وهو: زواج توافرت فيه أركان النكاح وشروطه وأضمر الزوج في نفسه طلاق المرأة بعد مدة معلومة كعشرة أيام، أو مجهولة ؛ كتعليق الزواج على إتمام دراسته أو تحقيق الغرض الذي قدم من أجله.
وهذا النوع من النكاح على الرغم من أن جماعة من العلماء أجازوه، إلا أن المجمع يرى منعه ؛ لاشتماله على الغش والتدليس. إذ لو علمت المرأة أو وليها بذلك لم يقبلا هذا العقد. ولأنه يؤدي إلى مفاسد عظيمة وأضرار جسيمة تسيء إلى سمعة المسلمين"
_
(1) Majority of scholars deemed this kind of marriage contract valid and allowed; meaning the involved parties did not commit fornication or adultery since such intention is neither disclosed nor known to the bride and her guardian.

(2) Despite of the validity of the contract, should a man establish the will in his heart to divorce the woman he intends to marry after certain part of time, he is by that commits a major sin because such intention is nothing but a cheating, misleading, decieving and taking advantage of people's good will.

The Fiqh Concil of the Islamic World League disallowed this kind of marriages due to the sinful intention and the unthinkable harm and suffering caused to the wife and her family. [See the resolutions of the Council dated 8/12/2006]
http://islamport.com/k/mjl/6401/53861.htm

You are simply deranged, you first taunt me on objecting to swine and deadmeat and then produce khatib and others who are also making the points I made. Maybe khatib was a rafdhi!

Stop behaving like a Moron. Khattabi criticized Ibn Abbas(ra) that's true, but the reason I'm quoting them because you argued that Ibn Abbas(ra) didn't give a conditional Fatwa, however Al-Khattaby and other whom I quoted that criticized Ibn Abbas, did say that he gave conditional Fatwa.

Here are your words.

You are just clutching at straws by interpreting a narration while no one has ever claimed that Ibn Abbas gave a conditional fatwa.

So did you get now why did I insult you? Because you are behaving in such a stupid manner. And don't forget the authentic report wherein we find that Ibn Abbas(ra) said that his Fatwa was conditional.

Then you call a Hadith mentioning Abubakr and Umar as a Hadith for Hajj e Tammatu and that Hajj was prohibited by Umar so it was allowed at the time of abubakr but Muta e nisa was not
  Narrated Imran: “We performed hajj al-tamattu in the life time of Allah’s Apostle and then the Qur'an was revealed [endorsing hajj al-tamattu], and somebody (i.e. Umar) said what he wished [regarding hajj al-tamattu] according to his own opinion.” (Sahih Bukhari 2.26.642)
When people would say to Ibn Abbas: 'You deem Mut'ah to be halaal, whilst Abu Bakr and Umar prohibited it', he would reply: 'May stones hit you from the sky, I am telling you about the orders of Rasulullah(s) and your telling me about the orders of Abu Bakr and Umar'.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 2 page 176

I have already refuted this point, saying these reports are regarding Mutah al-Haj not Mutah of women. So why do you keep repeating the same argument, in a dumb manner?

As for his retracting his fatwa, this ruju mentioned in your quotes is denied by most scholars.
ومع ھذامارجع ابن عباس عما کان یذہب الیہ من اباحت الحمر والمتعۃ/البدایۃوالنھایۃ۔جز ،۶ ،ص۔۲۷۸ ۵
قد ثبت انہ مستمر القول علی جوازھا ولم یرجع الی قول علی/مرقاۃ المفاتیح شرح مشکاۃ المصابیح جز ۵ ص ۲۰۷۵
علامہ ابن ھمام حنفی: فقد ثبت انہ مستمر القول علی جوازھا ولم یرجع الی قول علی
  علامہ ابن حجر عسقلانی قول ابن بطال نقل ہوتے ہوئے کہتے ہے وروی عنہ الرجوع باسانید ضعیفۃ
All narrations about the ruju of ibn abbas are weak. فتح الباری ، جز ۹، ص ۱۷۳،
علامہ ابن حجر ہیثمی : وحکایۃ الرجوع عنہ لم تصح
But your twisted mind only allows the narration which suits you.
In ilm ul Hadith, Jarah precedes Tadeel.

I know very well that the reports of Ibn Abbas(ra) retracting from his Fatwa fall short from being considered as reliable. However, the reason I mentioned that some scholars believed he retracted because, you asked a stupid question, that were some scholars wrong, even though I gave you clear cut hadeeth of Ibn Abbas(ra) giving a conditional Fatwa which has destroyed your arguments backbone. So since scholars in the case of Ibn Abbas retraction can be wrong because hadeeth are weak, then in the same way they can be wrong IF they believed Ibn Abbas gave unconditional Fatwa, because we have SAHIH hadeeth that he gave conditional Fatwa. Got it?