CONTRACTIONS IN AMAR NAKSHWANI’S LECTURE ON MUTAH
Al MIzan - www.almizan.org
Sheikh Ammar Nakshawani is a renowned speaker and he uses his base information to defend mutah. However he contradicts Allama Tabatabaee who wrote the volume Al Mizan tafasir. Here is a small list of contradictions made by him.
Sheikh Nakshwani starts to explain verse 4:24 and focuses on the word Istimtah in this verse. He says that in those days the word for mutah was Istimtah and this is why, he says, it is used in the Quran. However, here is what Ayatullah Tabatabaee says about the word Istimtah in his tafsir Al Mizan:
"There is no doubt whatsoever that the word, al-istimta' (lit. to enjoy) used in this verse means mut'ah …. It is important that mutah was in vogue within the sight and hearing of the Prophet; and it had this very name, mut'ah; no other word was used to denote this type of marriage. " Al Mizan (Tabatabai)
So clearly Nakshawani is saying opposite to Allama Tabatabai. So who is right?
Allama Tabatabai is renowned as one of the greatest scholars of the Shia world. He claims to have derived the tafsir of the Quran by connecting different verses of the Quran together. He tries to explain to his students that why mutah is not mentioned in verse 4:24 but instead Istimtah is mentioned. He claims that the word istimtah in this verse cannot be taken literally otherwise it would mean that you only pay your temporary wife if you 'enjoyed' the sex with her. Hence he says that istimtah must mean mutah and not enjoy. In summary he is saying istimtah = mutah and not istimah = enjoy. So he proves to his students that it is okay if mutah is not mentioned as the word istimtah is mutah and that mutah was the only word used by pre-Islamic Arabs to describe hiring a woman for pleasure marriages.
However, Nakshawani is saying the opposite. He explains why the Quran does not use the word mutah is because the word mutah was not used before Islam came, and that the word for mutah was Istimtah in pre Islamic Arabia. He tries to prove this point by claiming that the Companions knew that Istimtah was pleasure marriages and that they would not use the word mutah for pleasure marriages but instead used the word Istimtah. Hence, he says that the Quran uses the word istimtah as it was used instead of mutah in those days.
In summary the two scholars are saying two different things. It is like in a court room where two defendants are brought to give evidence and they both say different things. What would the judge do?
One fact is that istimtah is used eight times in the Quran. Let us look at just one other verse were istimtah is used. Here it is:
46:20 ... And you Kafirs (rejectors of the truth) received istimtah and so now suffer for it.
So let us say that we accept what Allama Tabatabi is saying that Istimtah is nothing else but mutah. Well the same argument can be made for the verse 46:20 in which the word Istimtah is used again. In that case the verse would not only be saying that the people of mutah will suffer but it also associates mutah with kafirs.
Now let us look at Nakshawani's claim. If his claim is true that the word Istimtah was used to mean mutah then clearly this verse 46;20 is saying that those who do mutah will suffer.
Clearly the two claims from two different scholar is disproved by the verse 46:20. Of course none of them even quotes the verse 46:20. In particular the claim by Ayatullah Tabatabi is astonishing because he is supposed to derive the meaning of the verses by connection words up in the Quran. Clearly he has omitted connection 4:24 to 46:20 even though both verse have the word Istimtah in them.
Nakshawani first tells us that the Arabs before Islam had started mutah but called it Istimtah. Then he forgets this specific claim during his lecture and then says the opposite by saying that Nabi Muhammad originated mutah. So what is true: Did the pagans invent mutah or did the Nabi originate it? However, Tabatabaee says that mutah existed even before Islam.
Then Nakshawani take a U Turn, but why?
The reason he first says that the Arabs invented mutah was to justify why the Quran does not use the word mutah but instead uses the word Istimtah. Then he makes a U Turn and tries to argue that the Nabi could not have abrogated this pagan thing because he claims that the Nabi originated it. It is almost like mixing truth with false excuses and in the process he has contradicted himself without even realising it.
He then says that the Imam Ali said that ‘mutah’ was forbidden in Khybar. Which means that the word used was mutah, not istimtah! The Hadith in both Sunni and Shia books clearly show that Imam Ali used the word 'mutah' when he said that it was forbidden. Hence it adds more evidence that the Arabs did not use the word istimtah but used the name mutah.
THis then begs the question that since the word mutah was used by Arabs in pre Islamic Arabia then why did the Quran not use the word? And since Ammar Nakshwani is claiming a false thing about what word the Arabs used before Islam then is this not evidence of how artificially manufactured arguments are created to defend mutah to a passive audience?
He then says that Imam Ali said it was temporarily forbidden in Khybar because the NAbi wanted Muslim to focus on the battle and not on sex. Therefore, mutah – a temporary marriage – was 'temporarily' forbidden by the Nabi. He tries to make a joke of how Indian and Lebanese like garlic in order to prove that mutah was associated with garlic as temporarily forbidden.
The question arises that if the Nabi temporarily forbad Mutah in Khybar than why could he not have forbidden it for other battles in the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Hijra?
It further begs the question that if mutah becomes a diversion for Companions that the Nabi had to forbid it temporarily then it means that something is intrinsically bad with mutah that it has to be forbidden on temporary basis time and time again.
It also begs the question that why was garlic forbidden on in Khybar but not in other battles. Surely, garlic is a red herring in this hadith and could have been a later addition to confuse the issue by mischief makers like those who will do anything to justify mutah.
He says that on the onset of coming to Medina the verse 4:24 mentioned Istimtah which all the Companions knew meant mutah. But then he says that three of the prominent Companions put themselves in desperation and wanted to castrate themselves because they thought that mutah was forbidden.
So the question is that if these Companions knew that istimtah in the Quran meant mutah then why did these Companions bring themselves to desperation? Clearly they did not think that this verse has allowed them mutah otherwise they would not have brought themselves to such high desperation.
Sheikh Ammar Nakshwani and the followers of Sheikh Tabatabaee have their own blogs. Please send them the above to see if they have any responses. I have not got any!