I had suspended my original content after friends highlighted to me the sensitive nature of the language I had used. I have now removed the sensitive aspects and redrafted my case in the format of questions to the ulema. I did this after an undertaking from the 2013 President of the KSIMC Birmingham that he will send my questions to high ranking ulema and will endure to receive a reply from them which I promised to include on this website.
Question about the claim that mutah is in the Quran 1. The Quran does not have the word Mutah anywhere in it. But ulema claim that mutah is in the Quran. They justify it by saying that the word ISTIMTATUM in verse 4:24 is synonym with mutah. If this is the case then in verse 46:20 the Quran warns the kafirs that for getting ISTIMTATUM in the world they will enter hell. This would mean that Kafirs are the ones who seek mutah in the world and for it they will enter hell. So how can it be claimed that it is allowed by the Quran? 2. In Verse 4:24 the word ISTIMTATUM is used and ulema claim that it means'temporary marriage or mutah.' However, Ayatullah Tabatabae says in Al Mizan that mutah was in vogue at the time of the Nabi. so why did not God not use it but instead created controversy by using an inappropriate word like ISTIMTATUM?
3. Some ulema try to say that the context of the verse 4:24 leads to the interpretation that the word ISTIMTATUM is Mutah. But the question arises again that since the word MUTAH was in vogue at that time then why did God not use it?
4.In order for a context to be derived from a verse you have to look at the substance or content of it. In verse 4:24 we are clearly told not to live in lust and to take financial responsibility for marriage. This is the context of nikkah. So how can the context be regarded as pro mutah in verse 4:24?
5.In verse 4:24 there is no mention of the main condition of mutah which is a time limit. So if this was a mutah verse then why is the main condition needed to do mutah not mentioned? 5. If we look at the grammar of verse 4:24 then the only way to convert it to a mutah verse is to add the words SEEK TO in order for the verse to read: 'And when you SEEK TO do ISTIMTATUM.' Yet the words SEEK TO do not exist in the verse. Is this then not a forgery by those who are first converting the Quranic word Istimtatum to mutah and then adding words like SEEK TO just to make mutah fit in to the verse and useit to extract mutah from the Quran? 6. In verse 4:24 the beginning of the verse says: "Forbidden to you are married women, except for your maid servant or slave girls." So if this was a mutah verse then would it mean that you could do mutah with married maid servant or slave girls?
7.The verse 4:24 mentions AJAR as a 'payment' for doing mutah for the woman. It says: "And if you gain ISTIMTATUM (SATISFACTION OR ENJOYMENT) then give them the AJAR as agreed. So if this was a mutah verse then it would mean that you only pay her if she satisfies you. So why pay her before she satisfies you as according to the fikh on mutah you have to pay her the 'ajar' before she satisfies you?
8. The second important condition after the time limit is MAHR. This is also not mentioned in the verse. However, ulema say that the AJAR is the MAHR. This is yet another change in the words of the verse.
If it is true that Ajar means Mahr in the verse then why did God not use MAHR instead of AJAR when AJAR normally means gift or reward. 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?
9. If verse 4:24 allows mutah verse then it means that a man desperate for sex can do it. But in verse 4:25 it is not given as an alternative to a man who is desperate for sex and is going towards fornication. In it the only two solutions given are for the man to marry a maid servant or be patient. Muta is not given as an alternative to him even if he is near to sinning. Why?
10, if the answer to question 9 is that verse 4:24 is allowing mutah and so there was no need to allow it again in 4:25 then the question is that why does verse 4:25 give a different solution for a desperate man when mutah is already permitted in verse 4:24? Surely if a man is given a solution for his desperation in one verse then why give a different solution in a next verse?