Imam Malik and Imam ibn Hanbal deemed mutah permissible?

[Lion of Shia]

i read this 

Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i, a 9th century Sunni Shafi'i Islamic scholar writes:
“ Nikah Mut'ah is our eyes is false, whilst Imam Malik deemed it permissible, as proof he says it was halaal and permissible, it was removed and was not abrogated ”
^ Al Hidaya Volume 1 p. 13
^ See also Fath al-Bari Volume 9 p. 73 Dhikr Mut'ah

“Mut'ah cannot be Nikah, Mut'ah is false, it should not be practised, Ibn Abbas and Imam Malik had differing views, in their views this was practicable"
^ Fatawi Qadhi Khan Volume 1 p 151 al Nikah Fayl

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a 9th century Sunni Islamic scholar writes:
“ In the same way that Ibn Abbas deemed Mut'ah to be halaal, Imam Ibn Hanbal also stated Mut'ah was halaal ”
^ Tafsir ibn Kathir Volume 1 p. 14, Surah Nisa verse 24


“ Ibn Abbas and other party amongst the Sahaba narrated traditions that Mut'ah is halaal, and Ibn Hanbal also said that it was practicable ”
^ Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah Volume 4 and p. 94, Dhikr Khayber

“ Ibn Abbas another Sahaba said that Mut'ah can be utilised when needed, Ibn Hanbal also narrated the same
^ Ibn Kathir's in his Tafseer, Surah an-Nisa, Page 3 under the verse 4:24
 

[علوي]

Subhanallah, there are even Sunni scholars who say that Mutah is permissible. 

Look at this great documentary by Ahlulbayt TV about Mutah, this is where I learnt everything I know about it from:

 

[Debate follower]

Assalama alaykum – Ramadan Kareem to all. I had resolved not to engage in debates in the Blessed month of Ramadan. But this post mandates a prompt reply to clear this mis-information and mis-interpretation, so I am posting material from the Net repudiating the material in the original post.

“One of the brothers asked about the position of Imam Malik (May Allah shower him with Mercy) in regards to the issue of Mut’ah, since a Shiah has brought forth a quote from Al-Hidaya which states that Imam Malik (May Allah shower him with Mercy) held it to be permissible!

Now that is a clear falsehood upon Imam Malik (May Allah shower him with Mercy), since the statements from him are clear in the impermissibility of such a Marriage and that such a Marriage contract is considered void (Baatil).

Of course, it is not new for Shiahs to clinch to anything which may support their stance from close or afar, regardless of its validity and without verifying the reliability of such statements.

The reference to this claimed position of Imam Malik (who died in 179 H) was given as Al-Hidaya by al-Marghinani (died 593 H), May Allah shower him with Mercy. The Book of Al-Hidaya (الهداية شرح بداية المبتدي) is one of the relied upon Hanafi Fiqh Text authored by al-Imam Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Marghinani (أبو الحسن علي بن أبي بكر المرغيناني الحنفي), May Allah shower him with Mercy.

Imam Al-Dhahabi (May Allah shower him with Mercy) describes him in “Siyar A’laam Al-Nubalaa” 21/232 saying: “He was from the great vessels of knowledge”.

The quote brought from Al-Hidayah 1/195 reads:

وقال مالك : هو جائز لأنه كان مباحا فيبقى إلى أن يظهر ناسخة

… and Malik said: ‘It is permissible since it was lawful, and shall remain [as such] till what abrogates it appears’

It is best, however, to take a look firstly at the full text from Al-Hidayah so as not to get any misconceptions of al-Marghinani position. He said:

قال ونكاح المتعة باطل وهو أن يقول لامرأة أتمتع بك كذا مدة بكذا من المال وقال مالك هو جائز لأنه كان مباحا فيبقى إلى أن يظهر ناسخه قلنا ثبت النسخ باجماع الصحابة رضي الله عنهم وابن عباس رضي الله عنهما صح رجوعه إلى قولهم فتقرر الإجماع

And Mut’ah Marriage is invalid (Baatil), and it is to say to a woman that I shall enjoy you for this long, for this amount of money. Malik said: ‘It is permissible since it was lawful, and shall remain [as such] till what abrogates it appears’.

We say: Its abrogation has been proven by agreement of the Companions (May Allah be well pleased with them) [1], and it has been authentically proven that Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) returned back to what they (i.e., the other companions) have said, so the Consensus (Ijmaa’) [on the invalidity of such marriage] has been established.

Thus, we see that even with Imam al-Marghinani’s attribution of such a view to Imam Malik, he did not see that this is an acceptable difference of opinion, rather he has transmitted a Consensus to the contrary.

A few other scholars from the Hanafi Mazhab made a similar attribution to Imam Malik, such as Imam Al-Sarkhasi, May Allah shower him with Mercy, (died 483 H) in Al-Mabsout (6/426). We notice however that most were either commenting on Al-Hidaya or have taken this attribution to Imam Malik from one of these scholars without verifying its validity themselves.

Now as we mentioned in the beginning, that attribution to Imam Malik is undoubtedly false, since the Companions of Imam Malik, his close Students, those who have specializing in his Mazhab, as well as those who have gathered and recorded his views, all have never attributed to him such a stance, rather they reported from him that which is to the contrary, as shall be highlighted soon.

Add to this that most of the Scholars of the Hanafi Mazhab who have commented on Al-Hidaya or discussed this attribution to Imam Malik have even pointed out the mistake of the author in what he attributed to Imam Malik. This established even more just how baseless this claim by that Shiah really is.

Al-Imam Fakhr al-Din Uthman ibn Ali al-Zayla’i (who died in 743 H) – فخر الدين عثمان بن علي الزيلعي – said in “Tabyeen al-Haqa’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq” 5/290:

فَتْحٌ ( قَوْلُهُ : وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ : هُوَ جَائِزٌ إلَخْ ) قَالَ ابْنُ فِرِشْتَا فِي الْبَابِ الْأَوَّلِ مِنْ شَرْحِ الْمَشَارِقِ وَمَا حَكَاهُ بَعْضُ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ عَنْ مَالِكٍ مِنْ جَوَازِهَا فَخَطَأٌ ، وَقَالَ ابْنُ الْهُمَامِ : نِسْبَتُهُ إلَيْهِ غَلَطٌ ا هـ وَقَالَ السُّرُوجِيُّ : وَنِكَاحُ الْمُتْعَةِ لَا يَجُوزُ عِنْدَ مَالِكٍ ذَكَرَهُ فِي الذَّخِيرَةِ الْمَالِكِيَّةِ قَالَ : وَهُوَ قَوْلُ الْأَئِمَّةِ ، وَنَقْلُ صَاحِبِ الْكَشَّافِ عَنْهُ سَهْوٌ ا هـ

(His saying: and Malik said: ‘It is permissible …’) Ibn Frishta said in the first Chapter of ‘Sharh Al-Mashariq’: And what some Hanafis narrated from Malik about permitting it is a mistake.

Ibn Hammam said: Its attribution to him (i.e. Imam Malik) is incorrect. Al-Suruji said: Mut’ah marriage is not permissible according to Malik, as mentioned in Al-Zakhira Al-Malikiya, he said: And it is the view of the Imams. And the Author of Al-Kashaaf transmitted from him [that he did this attribution] out of forgetfulness.

Al-Imam ibn ‘Abdieen (died 1252 H), May Allah shower him with Mercy, said in “Rad Al-Muhtaar” (9/335):

ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ فِي الْفَتْحِ أَدِلَّةَ تَحْرِيمِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ فِي حِجَّةِ الْوَدَاعِ وَكَانَ تَحْرِيمُ تَأْبِيدٍ لَا خِلَافَ فِيهِ بَيْنَ الْأَئِمَّةِ وَعُلَمَاءِ الْأَمْصَارِ إلَّا طَائِفَةً مِنْ الشِّيعَةِ وَنِسْبَةُ الْجَوَازِ إلَى مَالِكٍ كَمَا وَقَعَ فِي الْهِدَايَةِ غَلَطٌ

Then he mentioned in Al-Fath the evidence for the forbiddance of the Mut’ah, and that it was [declared as such] during the Farewell Pilgrimage, and [the prohibition made] was a lasting continuous forbiddance. No one disputes this from the Imams and the Scholars of the various lands, except for a group/sect from the Shi’ah. [As for] the attribution of the view of permissibility  to Malik, as has occurred in Al-Hidaya, [then this] is a mistake.

Al-Imam Zayn al-Din ibn Ibrahim ibn Najeem al-Misri (died 970 H), May Allah shower him with Mercy, said in “Al-Bahr Al-Raaiq Sharh Kanz Al-Daqaaiq” (8/74):

وَالْأَحَادِيثُ فِي ذَلِكَ كَثِيرَةٌ شَهِيرَةٌ وَمَا نُقِلَ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ مِنْ إبَاحَتِهَا فَقَدْ صَحَّ رُجُوعُهُ وَمَا فِي الْهِدَايَةِ مِنْ نِسْبَتِهِ إلَى مَالِكٍ فَغَلَطٌ كَمَا ذَكَرَهُ الشَّارِحُونَ

And the narrations about this (i.e. the prohibition and unlawfulness of Mut’ah) are abundant and famous. As for what was transmitted from Ibn Abbas about allowing it, then it is authentically proven that he retracted that view. As for what is found in Al-Hidaya from attributing this to Malik, then it is a mistake as the commentators [on Al-Hidaya] have mentioned.

Now al-Imam al-Babarti, May Allah shower him with Mercy, (died 786 H) tried to make an excuse for the author of Al-Hidaya for making this attribution, so he said in “Al-‘Innaya Sharh Al-Hidaya” (4/392):

يجوز أن يكون شمس الأئمة الذي أخذ منه المصنف اطلع على قولٍ له على خلاف ما في المدونة

It is possible that Shams Al-Aimmah, whom the author took [this attribution] from, saw an opinion for him (i.e. Imam Malik) which is contrary to what is found in Al-Mudawwana

However, al-Imam Abu Muhammad Mahmood ibn Ahmad Badr al-Din Al-‘Ayni, May Allah shower him with Mercy, (died 885 H) commented on this statement from al-Babarti and said in his commentary on Al-Hidaya titled “Al-Binaya Sharh Al-Hidaya” (4/99):

قلت: لم يذكر في كتاب من كتب المالكية رواية تجوز المتعة، وبالاحتمال نقل قول عن إمام من الأئمة غير موجه مع أن مالكا روى في موطئه حديث الزهري من حديث علي بن أبي طالب _ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ – _ «أن رسول الله – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – نهى عن متعة النساء يوم خيبر» ، على ما يأتي بيانه عن قريب إن شاء الله. وقال الأكمل هنا أيضا معتذرا ليس من يروي حديثا يكون واجب العمل؛ لجواز أن يكون عنده ما يعارضه أو يترجح عليه، انتهى. قلت: عادة مالك أن لا يروي حديثا في موطئه إلا وهو يذهب ويعمل به، ولو ذكر عنه ما ذكره الأكمل لذكره أصحابه ولم ينقل عنه شيء من ذلك.

I say: There has not come any mention in any book [from the books] of the Malikis of any [such] narration which permits Mut’ah, and thus the assumption of this having been transmitted from an Imam of the Imams is not justified.

Malik even narrated in his Muwata’ the narration of Al-Zuhri from the way of Ali ibn Abi Talib – May Allah be pleased with him- “That the Messenger of Allah –Peace and Blessings upon him- forbade from the Mut’ah of women in the day of Khaybar, as will be mentioned soon by the Will of Allah.

Al-Akmal (i.e. Imam Al-Babarti) also said as an excuse, that not everyone who narrates a tradition necessitates that he holds it obligatory to act upon it, since it is possible that he has with him that which conflicts with it or that which outweighs it [in his view] (end quote).

I say: The general habit of Malik is that he does not narrate a tradition in his Muwata’ except that he upholds and act upon it, and if what Al-Akmal stated was [correct and] known about [Imam Malik] then that would have been mentioned [and transmitted] by his companions, and nothing of this sort was narrated about him.

These quotes shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the Scholars of the Hanafis have even attested to the falsehood of attributing such a view to Imam Malik., May Allah shower him with Mercy.

Now the narrations in the books of the Malikis are plenty and establish the prohibition of Mut’ah, and that such a Marriage is invalid. We shall bring two quotes from the Books of the Malikis school establishing the position of Imam Malik, since they are the ones most knowledgeable of his sayings and the ones who compiled his views. It is them whom one should refer to when wishing to know the position of Imam Malik or to know the stance of the Mazhab.

Imam Abu Umar Ibn Abdilbar al-Maliki (died 463 H) said in Al-Istidhkar (5/508):

اتفق أئمة [ علماء ] الأمصار من أهل الرأي والآثار منهم مالك وأصحابه من أهل المدينة وسفيان وأبو حنيفة من أهل الكوفة والشافعي ومن سلك سبيله من أهل الحديث والفقه والنظر والليث بن سعد في أهل مصر والمغرب والأوزاعي في أهل الشام وأحمد وإسحاق وأبو ثور وأبو عبيد وداود والطبري على تحريم نكاح المتعة لصحة نهي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عندهم عنها

The Scholars of the [various] Lands from among Ahl Al-Ra’i and the Athaar, and from them are: Malik and his Companions from the People of Medina, and Sufyan and Abu Hanifa from the People of Kufa, and al-Shafiee and whoever followed his path from the People of Hadeeth and Fiqh, and al-Layth ibn Sa’d  in Egypt and Morocco, and al-Awzaa’i in the People of Shaam, as well as Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, Abu Ubayd, Dawud, and Al-Tabari all have agreed on the forbiddance of Mut’ah Marriage because of the authenticity of the prohibition which came from the Messenger of Allah, Blessings and peace of Allah upon him, regarding it.

Finally, we bring the following from Al-Mudawwana al-kubra compiled by al-Imam Sahnun ibn Saeed al-Tanukhi (died 240 H), who gathered the bulk of Imam Malik’s positions through Imam Malik’s direct student al-Imam Abdurahman ibn al-Qaasim (died 191 H) and who accompanied Imam Malik for 20 years (May Allah shower them with Mercy).

Under the section entitled “Marriage to a set time” 2/130 (النكاح إلى أجل), he says:

I said: If he marries a woman, with the approval of her guardian, upon a dowry which they specified, and [specifies] that he shall marry her for a month, or a year, or two, will this marriage be considered valid?

He said: Imam Malik said: That marriage is void/invalid (Baatil). If he marries her to a specified period of time then that marriage becomes void.

قلت: أرأيت إذا تزوج امرأة بأمر الولي بصداق قد سماه تزوجها شهرا أو سنة أو سنتين أيصلح هذا النكاح ؟ قال: قال مالك: هذا النكاح باطل، إذا تزوجها إلى أجل من الاجال فهذا النكاح باطل، قال: وقال مالك: وان تزوجها بصداق قد سماه وشرطوا على الزوج ان أتي بصداقها إلى أجل كذا وكذا من الآجال وإلا فلا نكاح بينهما ؟ قال مالك: هذا النكاح باطل، قلت: دخل بها أو لم يدخل بها ؟ قال: قال مالك: هو مفسوخ على كل حال دخل بها أو لم يدخل بها، قال مالك: وإنما رأيت فسخه لأني رأيته نكاحا لا يتوارث عليه أهله

And in another location:

قلت: أرأيت إن قال أتزوجك شهرا يبطل النكاح أم يجعل النكاح صحيحا ويبطل الشرط؟ قال: قال مالك: النكاح باطل يفسخ وهذه المتعة وقد ثبت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تحريمها

I said: If he told her I shall marry you for a month, will this marriage be considered invalid, or will the marriage be considered correct, but that condition will be considered void?

He said: Malik said: The marriage is considered void and shall be invalidated, and this is Mut’ah, and it has been authentically proven from the way of the Messenger of Allah (Peace and Blessings of Allah upon him) that it is forbidden.

And Allah knows Best

And I ask Allah that what was presented will suffice,

And all Praise is due to Allah the Lord of all creation

References:

[1] Ibn al-Hammam said in Fath Al-Qadeer 6/439:

قُلْنَا قَدْ ثَبَتَ النَّسْخُ بِإِجْمَاعِ الصَّحَابَةِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ : هَذِهِ عِبَارَةُ الْمُصَنِّفِ ، وَلَيْسَتْ الْبَاءُ سَبَبِيَّةً فِيهَا فَإِنَّ الْمُخْتَارَ أَنَّ الْإِجْمَاعَ لَا يَكُونُ نَاسِخًا ، اللَّهُمَّ إلَّا أَنْ يُقَدِّرَ مَحْذُوفٌ : أَيْ بِسَبَبِ الْعِلْمِ بِإِجْمَاعِهِمْ : أَيْ لَمَّا عُرِفَ إجْمَاعُهُمْ عَلَى الْمَنْعِ عُلِمَ أَنَّهُ نُسِخَ بِدَلِيلِ النَّسْخِ أَوْ هِيَ لِلْمُصَاحَبَةِ : أَيْ لِمَا ثَبَتَ إجْمَاعُهُمْ عَلَى الْمَنْعِ عُلِمَ مَعَهُ النَّسْخُ .

 [2] All reference have been stated above with the pages and volumes made in line with al-Shamela. Some points were benefited from some online references, such as a post by Br. Mahmood Al-Khuzaa’i, as well as some other sources. I ask Allah to reward them all abundantly.”

https://ibnabbas.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/imam-malik-and-mutah/

[علوي]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:42 PM, Debate follower said:

it is not new for Shiahs to clinch to anything which may support their stance from close or afar

We are not 'clinching' to anything. Brother @Lion of Shia mentioned these imams to show Sunnis that mut'ah is permissible. We, the Shia, don't take anything from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, or Abu Hanifa, or Malik Ibn Anas, or Al-Shafi'i. We take from our Imams; Imam Al-Baqir (عليه السلام) and Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام). We don't take from the four Sunni imams because Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) has more of a right for us to follow him than those four. Why? Look at this hadith:

Quote

I [Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام)] said:

"O Prophet of Allah, and who are my associates?"

He said: "The ones whom Allah has made to be in His proximity and with Him, regarding whom He has said, 'O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Rasool and those with (Divine) Authority from you. Thus, if you were to quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Rasool.'" [4:59]

I said: "O Prophet of Allah, and who are they?"

He said: "The successors until they come to me at the fountain [of Kausar]. All of them are guides and guided ones. Neither will the plots of the plotters harm them, nor the betrayal of those that abandon them. They are with the Quran and the Quran is with them. Neither will they separate from it nor will it separate from them. It is due to them that Allah will help my community, and due to them that He will make it rain, and remove from them (calamities) due to the answering of their supplications."

So I said: "O Rasulullah, name them for me."

He said: "This son of mine" – and he placed his hand upon the head of Al-Hasan (عليه السلام) – "then this son of mine" – and he placed his hand upon the head of Al-Husayn (عليه السلام)" – "then the son of this son of mine" – and placed his hand upon the head of Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) – "then the son of his son whose name is Ali [Zaynul Abideen], his name is my name [Muhammad], spreader of my knowledge and treasurer of the revelation of Allah, and he [Zaynul Abideen] will come to this [world] during your lifetime, my brother, so convey my greetings to him." Then he turned towards Al-Husayn and said: "Then will come to you son [Muhammad Al-Baqir] in your lifetime, so convey my greetings to him. Then twelve Imams will be completed from your sons, O my brother."

(Source: Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Hilali – H 10 (Extract))

Did Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say the same about any of the Sunni imams? No. Why? Because they are not Ulil Amr like the 12 Imams of AhlulBayt (peace be upon them). 

So you are mistaken when you said that we clinch to something that's not authentic, because we are not clinching to your imams. Rather, we just used their fatwas to prove that mut'ah is even permissible in their eyes. But for us, it's more than enough when Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) says,

Quote

 

"The mut'ah was revealed with in the Quran and it flowed by the Sunnah from Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)."

(Source: Kitab Al-Kafi, 5: 5/449)

 

Wassalam.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 4/7/2022 at 6:12 PM, Debate follower said:

Babarti and said in his commentary on Al-Hidaya titled “Al-Binaya Sharh Al-Hidaya” (4/99):

قلت: لم يذكر في كتاب من كتب المالكية رواية تجوز المتعة، وبالاحتمال نقل قول عن إمام من الأئمة غير موجه مع أن مالكا روى في موطئه حديث الزهري من حديث علي بن أبي طالب _ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ – _ «أن رسول الله – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – نهى عن متعة النساء يوم خيبر» ، على ما يأتي بيانه عن قريب إن شاء الله. وقال الأكمل هنا أيضا معتذرا ليس من يروي حديثا يكون واجب العمل؛ لجواز أن يكون عنده ما يعارضه أو يترجح عليه، انتهى. قلت: عادة مالك أن لا يروي حديثا في موطئه إلا وهو يذهب ويعمل به، ولو ذكر عنه ما ذكره الأكمل لذكره أصحابه ولم ينقل عنه شيء من ذلك.

I say: There has not come any mention in any book [from the books] of the Malikis of any [such] narration which permits Mut’ah, and thus the assumption of this having been transmitted from an Imam of the Imams is not justified.

Malik even narrated in his Muwata’ the narration of Al-Zuhri from the way of Ali ibn Abi Talib – May Allah be pleased with him- “That the Messenger of Allah –Peace and Blessings upon him- forbade from the Mut’ah of women in the day of Khaybar, as will be mentioned soon by the Will of Allah.

Al-Akmal (i.e. Imam Al-Babarti) also said as an excuse, that not everyone who narrates a tradition necessitates that he holds it obligatory to act upon it, since it is possible that he has with him that which conflicts with it or that which outweighs it [in his view] (end quote).

I say: The general habit of Malik is that he does not narrate a tradition in his Muwata’ except that he upholds and act upon it, and if what Al-Akmal stated was [correct and] known about [Imam Malik] then that would have been mentioned [and transmitted] by his companions, and nothing of this sort was narrated about him.

These quotes shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the Scholars of the Hanafis have even attested to the falsehood of attributing such a view to Imam Malik., May Allah shower him with Mercy.

Salam month of Ramadan Mubarak to all

Even if we accept  authenticity  of it then it just talks about prohibition  of Mutah as recommended deed  in a speciific date & incident not a lifetime prohibition which also Shia Marjas can prohibit Mustahab/Recommended  actions likewise Mutah for a limited time based in specific conditions as secondary rulling  which by nullification  specific conditions then so secondary  rulling will be nullified  too which also there is reports which Sahabas especially  Ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه) have been practicing  it in time of rulership of Abubakr  which they have had to stop practicing  it by order of Umar because  hey have been fearing from his cruelty .

[Abu Nur]

Quote

Malik even narrated in his Muwata’ the narration of Al-Zuhri from the way of Ali ibn Abi Talib – May Allah be pleased with him- “That the Messenger of Allah –Peace and Blessings upon him- forbade from the Mut’ah of women in the day of Khaybar, as will be mentioned soon by the Will of Allah.

The problem with this narration is that the revelation of Mut'ah permissibility came years after the day of Khaybar (in the year Mecca was conquered Mut'ah was made permitted) so how it is possible Mut'ah was forbaded when it did not even exist at those times?

As for Mut'ah prohibition after the Mecca Conquer, that is the weird one because most of your source come from only one man Ibn Sabra, making it Khabr Wahid and very problematic to abrogate an Quran verse. Does it make any sense that Prophet stood before Ka'bah and in front of large Muslim audience and bans Mut'ah till the day of Judgement and only one man recorded the event?

Edited April 12, 2022 by Abu Nur

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 4/7/2022 at 6:12 PM, Debate follower said:

Malik even narrated in his Muwata’ the narration of Al-Zuhri from the way of Ali ibn Abi Talib – May Allah be pleased with him- “That the Messenger of Allah –Peace and Blessings upon him- forbade from the Mut’ah of women in the day of Khaybar, as will be mentioned soon by the Will of Allah.

Salam a cenasored part is forbade eating meat of donkey in Khaybar which people likewise you have mentioned it to prove their claim which Sunni scholars likewise Imam Malik have not forbade meat of donkey which because source of reffering to both of it from one narrtion so therefore forbidding Mutah by Imam Malik & other  sunni scholars is void .

Quote

 Ibn Muslim and Zurara asked Abu Jaffar about eating domestic donkeys? He replied: Allah’s Apostle banned eating it on day of Khaybar temporary only for that period because the people needed them for the purpose of transportation, verily Haram is what has been made Haram by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in Quran.

We read in Al-Kafi, volume 6 page 246: 

ابن مسلم، وزرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام أنهما سألاه عنأكل لحوم الحمر الأهلية؟ قال: نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله عنها وعن أكلها يوم خيبروإنما نهى عن أكلها في ذلك الوقت لأنها كانت حمولة الناس وإنما الحرام ما حرم الله عز وجل في القرآن.

 

Quote

The reasons for banning the meat of domestic donkeys has also been recorded in Sunni books. W read in Al-Mojam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, Volume 11 page 342: 

 عن ابن عباس قال إنما حرم رسول الله الحمر الأهلية مخافة قلة الظهر

 Ibn Abbas said: ‘Allah’s apostle banned the domestic donkey because they required it for transportation’.

Reply Two: Ibn Abbas and Ayesha also deemed eating domestic donkey as Halal whilst some Sunni scholars have only deemed it as Makruh

 Amr bin Dinar said: I said to Abu al-Shatha “they claim that Allah’s Apostle banned the meat of domestic donkeys”. He replied: “O Amr, the knowledgeable one (Ibn Abbas) rejected this and recited {Say I find not in that which has been inspired to me anything forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it} 6:145.

Shoaib Arnaout said:  ‘The chain is Sahih according to the Standard of the two Sheikhs’

On 4/7/2022 at 6:12 PM, Debate follower said:

I say: The general habit of Malik is that he does not narrate a tradition in his Muwata’ except that he upholds and act upon it, and if what Al-Akmal stated was [correct and] known about [Imam Malik] then that would have been mentioned [and transmitted] by his companions, and nothing of this sort was narrated about him.

Ibn Abbas said that it’s not Haram.
 We read in Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, Volume 1 page 387: 

فإن جمهور العلماء على تحريم لحوم الحمر الإنسية الا ما روي عن ابن عباس وعائشة انهما كانا يبيحانهما وعن مالك انه كان يكرهها

 The majority of scholars deem the meat of domestic donkey to be Haram except ibn Abbas and Ayesha as it has narrated that both of them deemed it Halal and Imam Malik deemed it Makrooh.

We should point out that Malik was not the only one that deemed it Makrooh rather this opinion is also shared by Hanafi clergy also. We read in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 8 page 184: 

http://www.shiapen.com/concise/is-eating-flesh-of-domestic-donkey-allowed-or-prohibited.html