The word Mutah is no where in the Quran. Yet it is made out to be endorsed by the Quran. The way it is derived is by interpretation of verse 4:24 in which we are told that the word ISTIMTATUM means mutah. But verse 46:20 also uses the same word and says that it is the kafirs who want ISTIMTATUM in this world and their place is hell. So does Istimtatum really mean mutah or does it have a meaning dependent on the context? Here are questions i have asked and am waiting for answers from any establishment that believes Mutah to be part of Islam. As soon as I get the answers I will post them on the website.
1. The verses 4:24 and 46:20 both use the same word ISTIMTATUM but our shia books will only quote 4:24 and argue that the root word for ISTIMTATUM is Mutah. The will not mention that in 46:20 it is said that it is Kafirs who seek ISTIMTATUM in this world and their place is hell. So if it was true that ISTIMTATUM means Mutah then it would mean according to 46:20 that those who seek it are kafirs and will enter hell. So how can it be argued that ISTIMTATUM in 4:24 is a permission for temporary marriage as this would be contradicted by 46:20?
Clarification of the Question 1 The word ISTIMTATUM means pleasure and not Temporary Marriage. So why does Allah not use an appropriate word for temporary marriage but instead uses the word Istimtatum when he could have used the word Nikkah Mutah (pleasure marriage) or another word for Temporary Marriage which had roots both in the word Temporary and in the word Marriage.
If the answer is that ISTIMTATUM is used because it is derived from Mutah as a root word then why in verse 46:20 the same word is used again but this time does not mean temporary marriage.
If the answer is that in verse 4:24 and 46:20 the contexts are different then the question is that the idea of using the context is not dependent on words but on an overall meaning of the verses. So then why is there such an emphasis on trying to turn ISTIMTATUM in to the root word Mutah rather than use the whole verse and look at the context of the verse?
So the Question 1 is that if Allah has meant temporary marriage by using the word Istimtatum then he should have used the word Nikkah Mutah or roots words of temporary in order to give the exact meaning. This way our scholars would not be left first trying to base their argument on root words and then when it fails they then have no choice but to turn to the context.
2. The verse 4:24 puts two conditions for an Islamic Marriage thus: No Lust and Financial Responsibility to the wife. Both these are against temporary marriage. So how can it be said that the context is of temporary marriage?
Clarification of Question 2 When the verse says we must not seek wives in LUST then it means that our lusty desires are not to be the aim of the marriage. Does this not go against the whole definition of nikkah mutah? IN so many other places in the Quran we are told not have secret love affairs or live in lust. Yet mutah is about secret affairs and lust.
Secondly, when the verse says Financial Responsibility then it cannot be a simple 'payment for sex' as it would make Islamic marriage in to prostitution. Financial Responsibility in the verse is a condition to maintain the woman you marry as a wife, and not about renting a woman's body. However, in mutah you don't take financial responsibility as you can even give her a 'handful of dates' or a 'an old blanket' to pay her for sex as you would do for a rented woman.
So these two conditions make the context against mutah. So how can it be claimed that it is a mutah verse?
3. In verse 4:24 there is no mention of the essential condition of temporary marriage which is the Time Limit. So if this was a verse for temporary marriage then why is the essential condition missing?
Clarification of Question 3: In Tafsirs like Qumi and even in Tabatabie we see the acceptance that people used to say that 'for a time limited' was mentioned in the original reading of the Quran. This story is repeated several times in different books. So is it a serious claim by these scholars that the condition of Time Limit was there in the beginning but was later removed?
If it is not true then why do the tafsirs have the words ' for a time limit' in them when these words are not in the Quranic verse? In other words, why do our Shia tafasirs have justification to add or put words in to the verse that don't exist in the Quranic verse?
4. If we look at the grammar of verse 4:24 then the words are used in the past tense of a husand who is satisfied with his wife. It says 'if your wives have been satisfying or pleasing (istimtatum) then give them Ajar as agreed.' It is in past tense. In other words the duty of the wife is done first before the Ajar is paid. However, in Tabatabee version the tense is not past and the words have changed. it says 'And if you SEEK TO do ISTIMTATUM.....' So why is he changing the tense and also adding his words 'Seek to' as this would that there was something wrong in the Quranic wordings?
Clarification of Question 4 To add Seek To and to change the tense is the only way Allama Tabatabae can fit temporary marriage in to the grammar of the verse 4:24. He admits that if he translated the verse word for word then it would mean that the man needs to be satisfied first and then he gives ajar afterwards. In other words, he is inferring that the past tense used in this verse is wrong if it is applied to temporary marriage as it gives a wrong meaning and so he finds the need to change it to future tense and add Seek To in order to fit it with temporary marriage. He then detaches from his own justifications to change the past in on present tense by finding a compromise between the past tense of the Quran and his present tense by saying that it is better to give half the payment for sex before getting the satisfaction and then the other half if satisfaction is gained. However, this half payment before and half afterwards is not in the verse either.
So if the verse is clearly a mutah verse then why does the grammar needm changing and why is there a need to add To Seek in the verse.
5. In verse 4:24 the beginning of the verse says: "Forbidden to you are married women....." So if this is a mutah verse then it would mean that only mutah is forbidden to married women but nikah is allowed. Otherwise where is the verse that forbids nikkah with married woman if this verse does not apply to nikkah?
Clarification for Question 5 If this verse is of Mutah then what it forbids can only apply only to mutah. So can you do nikkah with married woman as there is no other verse forbidding nikkah with a married woman?
6.The verse gives an exception and says we can marry slave women even if they are married. This would mean that we can do mutah with them even if they are married. Yet in verse 4:25 it is clear that a married slave woman are liable for punishment if she has sex with anybody except her husband. So is verse 4:24 allowing men to do mutah with married slave women but verse 4:25 is saying that married slave women cannot have sex outside their marriage: A Clear Contradiction Created between the two verse if 4:24 is a mutah verse?
Clarification for Question 6 In tafasir Al Mizan it is written that this verse allows a man to keep his slave girl away from her husband for two months and then do mutah with her before she returns back to her husband. But in verse 4:25 it says that an unchaste slave girl is liable to punishment if she commits adultery. Does this mean that if verse 4:24 is a mutah verse and Al Mizan is right then a slave girl can have two husbands - temporary and permanent, and that adultery in 4:25 is not classified for slave girls when they are being exchanged between their permanent husbands and her mutah husbands?
7.The verse 4:24 mentions AJAR. It says: "And if your wives have been satisfying to you then give them the AJAR as agreed unless you both mutually agree to change it." So if this was a mutah verse then why is the Ajar being allowed to be changed as once it is agreed it cannot be changed after satisfaction is gained?
Clarification for Question 7 In the tafasirs it is written that AJAR in this verse does not really mean ajar but it means Mahat for Mutah. So if this is true then why has the verse allowed the agreed amount to be changed when a single payment of Mahar is all the woman gets and that too is changeable?
8. The second essential condition for mutah after the time limit is MAHAR. But instead of Mahar the verse mentions AJAR. Mahar means Payment while Ajar means Reward. So why would Allah use an inappropriate word if this was a mutah verse?
Clarification of Question 8 If it is true that Ajar can also mean Mahar in the verse then why did God not use MAHR when words are constantly repeated in chapter after chapter. And if Ajar is used to distinguish it from mahar of nikkah then why not use a root word of mahar instead of using an inappropriate word like Ajar. Why not use some other word to distinguish it as the word AJAR cannot be payment for marriage as it means gift or reward as proved by the fact that in our duas we say May Allah give you Ajar for helping me?
As Ajar means reward it is something that comes after the act is done but in mutah the Mahar is paid before. So why use an inappropriate word?
9. If verse 4:24 allows mutah then it means that there is no need for verse 4:25 where a desperate man is told to be patient or marry a slave girl. What is the need for Verse 4:25 if verse 4:24 is allowing mutah?
Clarification of Question 9 In verse 25 we are told that a man in desperation should either marry a slave girl or better be patient.
So if the Quran is allowing mutah then why have this verse as it would be obvious that a desperate man can do it without marrying a slave girl or being patient?
10. If verse 4:24 is a mutah verse then it means that an Islamic marriage is cheap based on short contracts and that islam is trying to present what is prostitution as a form of marriage. Is this not like saying terrorism is self defence or drinking alcohol is freedom?
clarification of Question 10 Putting a label on prostitution as a form of marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage by definition is a life long commitment and much more secure than even friendship which too cannot have the intent of being temporary as then it is not friendship but just a partnership. So are we twisting things only to appease those who want to fornicate by calling their act a form of islamic marriage?