Sahih Shia Ahadith on the Prohibition of Mutah and ridiculous replies of Answering-Ansar
[url]https://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mutah/en/chap11.php[/url]
[QUOTE]The Shia themselves have a hadith narrated by Ali (r.a.a) which states that the Prophet made Mut'ah haram on the day of Khayber (Book of Tahdeeb: vol. 7, pg. 251, rewaya 10). The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of Taqiya. In Book of Istebsar: vol. 3, pg. 142, rewaya 5, there is a declaration by Ali that Mut'ah is haram. Again they accuse Ali of lying for Taqiya.[/QUOTE]
Now lets analyze the answer of the answering-ansar team
[QUOTE]Reply One - A hadith that has not been verified by a hadith scholar cannot be relied upon
We read in Ahl as-Sunnah esteemed masterpiece Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 9 page 266 Muthaeen Abu Bakr:
In the eyes of Ahl as-Sunnah, only those hadith are reliable that appear in the authoritative texts of hadith scholars.
Using this argument, we would point out that both hadith have not been recorded / relied upon by any authoritative hadith scholar.[/QUOTE]
The fallacity of this reply can be seen through the next reply , in which Shaikh Tusi comments on this hadith. So indeed he did record the hadith and comented on it.
[QUOTE]Reply Two - Shaykh Tusi rejected both traditions
The author of Tahdeeb and Istibsar namely Shaykh Tusi himself rejected the traditions. In his commentary of this hadith, he commented:
This narration was on account of Taqiyyah, this is in fact the aqeedah of the opponents of the Shi'a, those with knowledge should be aware that in our Imam's religion, Mut'ah is Mubah.
Tahdeeb al-Ahkam, Volume 7 page 251 Hadith (1085)10
Moreover, Shaykh Baqir Majlisi wrote the following about the tradition recorded in Shaykh Tusi's book:
"It appears to be a fabrication by the Zaidies as it appears from most of their traditions."
Malaz al-Akhyar, Volume 12 page 32 [/QUOTE]
From where come the shias know that the narration was on account of taqiyah (deception)? If that is the way they answer, than how can there be debate with shias because if a hadith proves to be sahih, they will say it was under taqiyah? Secondly , both things can't be true at the same time, either the hadith was sahih, or it was under taqiyah. The author of the book considers the hadith as sahih, that is why he used the excuse of taqiyah. Shaikh Baqir Majlisi just made an assumption and provided no solid answer.
[QUOTE]Reply Three - The narrators of the Khayber tradition are weak
A narrator in the chain is Husayn bin Alwan, about whom we read in Rijjal al Kashi and Rijjal al Kabeer:
"He was a 'Aam' Kufi"
When our hadith scholars grade a person as 'Aam' this means that he was 'common' a Sunni.
Another narrator Amro bin Khalid was also a Sunni (Wasail al-Shia, v30 p438) and if we analyze his status from even Sunni sources, we would come to know that he was not an authentic narrator as Ibn Hajar said about him: 'Matruk'. Yahya ibn Mueen said: 'liar' and Abu Zar'a said: 'He used to fabricate hadith'.
Having Sunni narrators in Shia text is not a strange thing. If we analyze the Shia text, we would come to know that some Shia narrators used to take traditions from Sunni narrators mixing up the chain of narration, as we read in Rijal Kashi, Volume 2 page 855:
Ibn Shaza said: 'My father [ra] asked Muhammad bin Abi Umair: 'You met many A'ama (Sunni) scholars, how come you didn't hear (hadith) from them?' He replied: 'I heard (hadith) from them, but I saw many of our (Shia) companions heard from the A'ama (Sunni) narrations and Khasa (Shia) narrations, then they mixed up until they attributed the narrations of A'ama (Sunnis) with the Khasa (Shia) and the narrations of Khasa (Shia) with the A'ama (Sunnis), therefore I disliked to mix up the traditions, so I left that and remained on that (narrating only from Shia).'
Keeping this thing in mind, we know that the prohibation of Mutah at Khayber narrated by Ali [as] is found in Sunni text, thus it is quite possible that the shia narrators heard it from the Sunni narrators, mixed up the chain and attributed the tradition to Zaid bin Ali.[/QUOTE]
Just because there is a sunni in the shia hadith, it doesn't make the shia hadith unauthentic, and this is well known to all shias. Secondly, if sunni scholars call him fabricator or liar, it doesn't hold the same for shias too. For example Jabir Jafi (جابر جعفی) is considered thiqqah by shias
[url]https://mahdawiat.com/ordo/pages/news.php?nid=607[/url]
[url]https://safeeneh.com/urdu/images/baqir.htm[/url]
but sunnis consider him liar and fabricator of hadith. So just becaue shia scholars called someone a liar, that doesn't hold anything for the shias, they should present from their own science of hadith, not the sunni's science of hadith. And your quote just proves that shia's used to take hadith from sunnis and twist that. That is well known to everyone, but what you want to prove from that here to us?
[QUOTE]We shall also point out that a tradition is referred to as 'Sahih' according to the Shia school when:
ما اتصل سنده بالعدل الإمامي الضابط عن مثله حتى يصل إلى المعصوم من غير شذوذ ولا علة
"What is narrated in succession by the authentic and preserved Imami narrator from the same quality narrator till it ends to the infallible without any oddity or malady"
Resael fi Derayat Hadith by Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli, Volume 1 page 395
The very principle can also be found in Sunni school as Allamah Ibn al-Salah said in his book 'Muqadimat ibn al-Salah' page 16:
"The Sahih hadith is the one with continued chain continually narrated by the just and preserved narrator from the just and preserved narrator till it ends without being odd or malady'.
The oddity of any tradition can be defined as:
"The oddity is the sole chain hadith contradicting the various chains of hadith"
Resael fi Derayat Hadith by Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli, Volume 1 page 409
And this rule is not exclusive to the Shia school, rather Sunni school also uphold the very principle as Allamah Ibn al-Salah said in his book 'Muqadimat ibn al-Salah' page 61:
"Verily the odd (hadith) is what the authentic (narrator) narrated contradicting what the people narrate, al-Hafiz Abu Y'ala al-Khalili al-Qazwini reported the same definition from al-Shafiyee and group of scholars of Hijaz and then he said: 'What is adopted by the scholars is that the odd hadith is which has only one chain narrated by an authentic or even unauthentic Sheikh, so what was narrated from unauthentic Sheikh is abandoned and what is narrated by authentic Sheikh so they stop on it and don't use it as proof'." [/QUOTE]
The simple fact is that this hadith is authentic, and it is against the large number of shia ahadith in favour of mutah, answering-ansar team has totally failed in refuting the hadith, and the reality of shia science of hadith is well known to all.
[QUOTE]So the cited tradition is weak by both the perspectives mentioned by Allamah Abu Fal al-Babeli i.e. it is neither narrated by authentic and preserved Imami narrator from the same quality narrator till it ends to the infallible Imam nor it is free from any kind of oddity and malady since it is narrated by only one chain of narration contradicting the Shia hadiths which are more than two hundred in number pertaining to the permissibility of Mutah. Abu al-Fazl al-Babeli stated in his book 'Resael fi Derayat Hadith' Volume 1 page 488:
"If a contradiction took place then the priority will be given to the abundance (of hadith)."
The tradition therefore is of no value to us, since it:
1. Contradicts the Qur'an
2. Contradicts the words of Maula 'Ali(as)
3. Contradicts the views of all of our Imams.
Moreover Ayatullah (late) Syed Abul Qasim al-Khoei mentioned the same after citing a few traditions on the prohibition of Mutah (including the one narrated from Ali [as] for the prohibition of Mutah at Khayber) in his authority work 'Al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran' page 313:
"Answer:
First: Abrogation cannot consist of a 'ahad' tradition, as we mentioned several times.
Second: These narrations contradict the muttawatir narrations of Ahlulbayt (as) which refer to the validity of mutah and the Prophet never forbidding it."
[url]https://www.shiaweb.org/quran/bayan/pa63a.html[/url]
On page 322 of the same book, he clearly stated:
"What has been narrated from Ali [as] regarding the prohibation of Mutah is absolutely fabricated."
And most importantly, the cited traditions narrated by Ali [as] suggest that Mut'ah was prohibited at Khayber whereas we already have advanced authentic traditions that point to the practice of Mut'ah after the victory of Makka, a year after Khayber.[/QUOTE]
Just because mutah was practised after the year of Khyber, it doesn't prove anything, wine was also prohibited , but people drink it to this day, does it make wine allowed?
Secondly, if al-Khoi didn't touch the shia ahadith of prohibition of mutah at all, rather he wasted all his efforts on telling how the sunni ahadith of mutah are fabricated. He didn't touch the shia hadith of mutah present in the book of tahdheeb and istibsar.
[QUOTE]Reply Four: Taqiyah was not on the part of Ali [as] rather it was practised by the narrator
The un-named author of Zawaj al Mut'ah stated regarding the two traditions he cited:
un named author states:
…The author states that Ali lied for the purposes of Taqiya… . Again they accuse Ali of lying for Taqiya.
It shows the sheer ignorance of the author since at no point does the author attest that it was Ali [as] who lied for the purpose of Taqiyah rather Taqiyah was practised by one of the narrators in the chain. That is what Faiz Kashani records in Al-Wafei, Volume 3 page 55:
"Attributing Taqiyyah to Amir al-Momineen [as] in relation to such a narration is impossible, but is possible if it is attributed to some of the narrators"
Al-Hur al-Amili likewise stated that the Taqiyyah was in 'narrating' the tradition not by the Imam [as]. We read in Wasail al Shia:
"Al-Shaikh (Tusi) and others took this as Taqiyyah, that is, in the narrating…"
Wasail al Shia, Volume 21 page 22 Hadith 26387
Logically, why would Maula Ali [as] perform Taqqiyah at that time, since Prophet [s] was there and Umar had not banned it. Even after the prohibition of Mutah by Umar, we have clear-cut tradition narrated by Ali [as]:
عن عبدالله بن سليمان قال سمعت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) يقول كان علي (عليه السلام) يقول: لولا ما سبقني به بني الخطاب ما زنى الا شقي
Aba Jaffar [as] said: 'Ali [as] used to say: 'Had son of Khatab not prohibited it, the only person to fornicate would be a wretched person''.
Al-Kafi, v5 p448. Hadi Najafi said: 'The chain is authentic' (Maouwsoat Ahadith Ahlulbayt, v5, p396).
And when we analyze the chain of narration we see that it was Zayd who practiced Taqiyah and his performing Taqiyah in this case is apparent by the fact that the first two narrators who narrated from Zayd namely Amro bin Khalid and al-Hussain bin Alw'an were Sunni, since Zayd was narrating in a Sunni environment and was wanted by the government of Bani Ummayah he attributed that hadith to the Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] under Taqiyah. [/QUOTE]
Now again, the answering-ansar teams accepts the hadith as authentic and uses the excuse of taqiyah. Again the question arise how can you differentiate which hadith was narrated by a narrator under taqiyah and which was not? The shia science of hadith is ridiculous.