HOW THE TAFASIR AL MIZAN JUSTIFIES MUTAH? Read the full analysis
The great Ayatullah Tabatabaee tries to explain the Quranic verse 4:24 using complex grammar and ends up justifying why the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM should be replaced by MUTAH and should not be taken literally but in the context of 'Temporary Marriage.' Having replaced the Quranic word he then builds up the argument based on the word Mutah even though this word is his replacement and not the Quranic word ISTIMTATUM.
He justifies the replacement of by saying that this word was 'in vogue' at that time and hence is the best meaning of ISTIMTATUM. He says that there is no other meaning to ISTIMTATUM but mutah and that mutah means 'temporary marriage' and not pleasure which is what ISTIMTATUM literally means.
"To visualise his argument imagine a vase is to be replaced by a mug and then we have to serve tea in the vase and yet never admit it is a vase!"
As ayatuallahs tend to have a passive following and so the obvious questions against his arguments are never entertained. But here is two fundamental questions against his argument of replacing istimtatum with mutah and then attaching temporary marriage to istimtatum
QUESTION 1: Since the ayatuallah admits that the word mutah was 'in vogue' at that time then why did the Quran not use this word but instead used the word ISTIMTATUM?
QUESTION 2: The Quranic word is istimtatum and so why take the conventional meaning of mutah and attach it to istimtatum?
click here to see how these two obvious questions against his premise are not considered in his lengthy justifications of why Istimtatum should change to mutah.
Argument 1- ISTIMATUM OR MUTAH? Firstly, if an ayatallulah replaces the Quranic words then is this not a totally betral of the Quran? Why replace Quranic words just because it does not suit you?
Here is the Quranic verse which Al Mizan alters (4:24)
TRANSLATION 1 USING THE ORIGINAL QURANIC WORDS .... and if you istimtatum (enjoyed or benefited) then give them the AJAR (rewards or gifts) as agreed .....
TRANSLATION 2 USING AL MIZAN VERSION .... and with those whom you SEEK TO DO MUTAH (temporary marriage) then give them the MAHR (Payment) as you mutually greed ....
Here are the points made by Al Mizan to change ISTIMTATUM to MUTAH and to then change ISTIMTATUM to mean temporary marriage:
1. Istimtatum means Mutah and not istimtatum (enjoyment). 2. Mutah cannot be taken literally and should be taken as meaning temporary marriage. 3. The word AJAR needs to be changed to MAHAR (wedding payment). 4. We can add the words SEEK TO to the Quranic verse in order to fit the change in words
The other change in Al Mizan is Past Tense is changed to the Present Possessive.
Questions to ask on Point 1
1: Since Al Mizan admits that the word mutah was in vogue in that time then why did the Quran not use this word but instead used the word ISTIMTATUM?
Question 2: Should we take the pagan meaning of mutah?
The pagan meaning of mutah was 'hire of vagina' as defined in Sheikh Thani's reference. So if we revert to the pagan meaning then can it acceptable to take women as sexual commodities in Islam?
Question 3: Can Quranic grammar be changed to suit change in wordings?
In order to convert the Quranic word istimatum in to mutah and then to change the litaral meaning of Mutah in to temporary marriage the Al Mizan tries to use a lots of grammar terminology like 'pronoun' and 'clauses' etc.
One whole paragraph about adding 'SEEK TO' is also disjointed. But it all confuses the reader who is left with the idea that some great intellectual argument is presented to derive Mutah out of the Quran.
However, what is justified is adding SEEK TO in to the verse after changing the wordings. This means that Quranic verse is now being added to in order to suit the meaning Al Mizan makes. Is not adding words, changing word and then playing on grammar not a tactic to alter or distort the original verse?
Argument 2 - If the word was for sexual pleasure then do we pay only if we 'Enjoyed' her?
The Al Mizan says that we have to change words like Istimtatum because if ISTIMTATUM is taken literally as enjoyment or pleasure or fulfillment then it would mean that you do not have to pay her for having sex with her if you did not get 'enjoyment.'
He therefore argues that you must pay her half before and half afterwards. He says you pay half after you enjoy her!
So Al Mizan concludes that you cannot take the verse literally otherwise men will be able to have sex with a woman and then say that it was not very pleasurable. Then they will try to get a mutual agreement to reduce the original agreed amount for sex.
Here is a red herring based on arguing that mutah is the 12th 'ROOT ' word of ISTIMTATUM
One point that some books make is that the root word for ISTIMATUM is MUTAH as it is the 12th root of the word. Some books say it is the 10th root! Let us assume that it is either the 12th or the 10th root: Then in eight places where the Quran uses the word ISTIMATUM the word must be changed to MUTAH. Now read one such verse:
46:20 …. You (kafirs) received ISTIMTATUM (fullfilments) and now you will be humiliated …. This would mean …. And you received MUTAH (temporary marriage) and now you will be humiliated ....
So if mutah is the 12 root (or 10th root) word of istimatum and if the words can be changed then it means that those who do mutah are both kafirs and will be humiliated by God.
ARGUMENT TO CHANGE AJAR OR MAHR
Notice that the word MAHR is not in the verse 4:24 either! If this was a mutah verse then Mahr would have been mentioned as it is an essential element of mutah.
Al Mizan tries to get over this by attesting that the word AJAR means MAHAR
Some books try to twist this by saying that the word AJAR is to differentiate between the mahar of mutah with that of nikkah.
However, in the Quran the word AJAR is used many times in many contexts including that for nikkah. The Quran therefore gives two payments for wives: Mahar at the time of the marriage and AJAR as reward for the wife's continued commitment to the marriage. This point is avoided in Al Mizan
ARGUMENT ABOUT WHEN THE VERSE WAS REVEALED IE AFTER THE BATTLE OF HUNAIN
For a moment let us go along with the explanation that the Quranic word Istimatum must be changed to Mutah and the word Ajar must be changed to Mahar of Mutah. But there is another problem. It is highlighted by this saying:
“The mutah verse was revealed in Hunain in the 9th Year of Hijra. So this proves that Mutah was valid till the end of the life of the Nabi.”
There are three major things wrong with this statement. Firstly, the verse starts by saying that forbidden are married women. If this was a mutah verse revealed in Hunain then it would mean that before this verse it was acceptable to do mutah with married women.
Secondly, if the verse was revealed in Hunain then why did God wait till that time to legalise mutah? If it was already practiced then why legalised it near to the end of the message?
The verse 4:24 is proceeding by the verse 4:23 in which God is stating which women you cannot marry including mothers and daughters. If verse 4:24 was revealed in Hunain then verse 4:23 must also be revealed at that time as they both are joined and continuous. This would mean that before that time it was allowed for Muslim to marry their mothers and daughters. Once again the whole history before Hunain would have to be twisted for mutah advocates to prove this was the Hunain verse.
In any case, what difference does it make if the verse was Hunain, Medina or Mecca verse? Only the advocates of mutah are obsessed with proving it to be Hunain verse as they cannot find any other verse whose words they can change to justify the pagan practice of 'hiring vaginas.'
ARGUMENT BASED ON THE QURAN DOES NOT REPEAT ITSELF IN THE SAME VERSE A new argument forwarded in Al Mizan is that in surah Nisa the Quran first says that a man has to give mahar (Marriage payment) to his wife. Then in the same chapter it says he has to give a gift or reward (Ajar). Then in the same chapter it says he has to pay his slave wife. The argument is that these are three different types of payments must infer that there are three kind of marriages in Islam, each with a different status. Hence nikkah is higher than mutah and mutah is higher than marrying a slave girl. Hence, according to Al Mizan it can only mean nikkah, mutah and slave girl marriages.
However, here are counter reasons against this explanation:
1. There is no direct mention of three different types of marriages in the Quran. Only one type if mentioned by name i.e. Nikkah (aqad).
2. Why did God want to differentiate between the MAHAR of nikkah and MAHAR of Mutah by using the word AJAR when AJAR means 'gift?' If God wanted to mean Mahar then he did not have to confuse us by using AJAR as it literally means gift or reward.
3. The marriage to a slave girl is not a third type of marriage but is also nikkah. The Quran mentions this marriage in order to remove the stigma of marrying slave girls. This is verified by the fact that the verse that tells men to marry slave girls says, ' you are all from each other.' This part of the verse in Surah Nisa Verse 25 is actually saying that as you are all the same there is no difference between a marriage to a slave than to a free woman. Hence the marriage is still nikkah and not a third type of marriage.
The saddest things for Muslims is that the above argument come from the scholars of Islam who replace Quranic wordings, meanings, grammar and even the whole definition of marriage instead of being vanguards of the Quran.