Response to: Prophet forbade Mutah on the Day of Khaybar?


The following is a response to SlaveOfAhlubait’s refutation to the topic of: “Prophet forbade Mutah on the Day of Khaybar?” The article was published on the 18th of July, 2011, and can be found here.

The article starts off with SoA quoting from a Sunni blog. The blog quotes the infamously authentic narration:
Ali RAA said: The Prophet PBUH forbade The meat of Donkeys and the Nikah of Mutah on the day of Khaybar.
Al tahtheeb 2/186, Al Istibsar 3/142, Wasael al Shia 14/441.

First Excuse: The Narration is Shaadh.
SoA responds by saying that according to Al-Tusi, this narration is shaadh.
He then explains:

this guy needs to realize that shadh hadeeth is a type of daif hadeeth

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

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

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

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

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

Third Excuse: The Narration came from Taqiyyah
This is the most popular answer given by Shia scholars due to the obvious authenticity of the chain. However, we respond like we have responded in the past, by saying that the Imam cannot have been in fear of narrating such narrations, since the scholars of Makkah like Ibn Juraij preached the permissibility of muta’ah during the time of Al-Sadiq. For references, refer to SoA other article: Sunnis and Mutah, which can be found here. Then refer to our refutation of that here.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. A Collection of articles from different websites refuting and exposing Mutah | In Defense of the Aal & Ashaab

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.