Site hosted by Build your free website today!


 Points: 1 - 13



1.Our shia scholars insist that Verse 4:24 is the ‘Mutah’ verse. Yet the   word mutah is not mentioned in it. Is this not odd because if mutah is not mentioned in it then how can it be a ‘mutah verse?’

2.In fact the verse 4:24 is totally against mutah because it says that men should not seek women for ‘lust.’ Hence the context of the verse is against mutah.

3.The verse 4:24 also says that men should seek women with their ‘finances.’ If this was a mutah verse then it would mean that men can seek sex by money. This is exactly what the scholar Ayatuallah Tabatabai concludes when he tries to justify mutah using this verse. But surely if it meant that men can seek sex by money then it would make this verse a prostitution verse. Hence there would be a clear link between prostitution and mutah which then makes mutah a business and not a marriage.  Then mutah should be rephrased as 'temporary prostitution.'

4. Imam Ali (s) said that to know the exact meaning of a verse we must collaborate one verse with another and take a meaning that is the 'best.' A better meaning of the words regarding men seeking women through their finances is that men should take the financial responsibilities for their wives. This is collaborated by the Quranic words; "Men are maintainers of women." This is also proven by the fact that the same verse says that men should not seek women for ‘lust.’ Hence seeking women through finances does not mean that men should seek sex using their money but it means that men should take the financial responsibilities of maintaining their wives.

5.The verse 4:24 starts by saying that you cannot marry women who are married. If this was a mutah verse then it would mean that you cannot do mutah with married women which would then mean that you can still do ‘nikkah’ with them. This would make the verse contradict other verses regarding adultery.

6. In order to mismatch things  there are scholars who want us to believe that the first bit  of the verse is about nikkah and the second bit is about mutah. But this too cannot work because if the first bit is about nikkah then it would mean you cannot do nikkah with married women but you can still do mutah with them. This means that your wife can do mutah with a man who finances her sexual intercourse. Once again this would be ridiculous.

7.The verse also says that you are allowed to 'marry' slave women who are already married. If this was a mutah verse then it woul mean that you can do mutah with a slave girl even if she was married. Again Ayatuallah Tabatabai justies this by giving a weird unknown narration saying that in the days of the Nabi the men used to do mutah with their married slave girls and return the women to their husbands after making them keep two months of idda. Hence what Ayatullah says is that you can contract to commit adultery with your married slave girls (or with a married woman who makes herself your slave!).  Not only is this morally wrong but it is also agains verse 4:25 where a punishment is stipulated for married slave girls commiting adultery.

8. Now if we seek collaboration from Quranic verses then a better meaning is that slave girls who were offered freedom could be freed from bondage if they married their masters. In such circumstances they did not need a divorce from their husbands.So the verse has nothing to do with permitting the use of married slave girls for sex but it is to do with a marriage to be freed from bondage.

9. The verse 4:24 does not mention Mahr which is essential for mutah. Hence not only does the verse not mention mutah it also does not mention mahr. Hence the two basic aspects of mutah are not mentioned in this verse - ie mutah and mahr are not mentioned!

10. It has taken a great deal of distortion, twists and extrapolation to convert 4:24 in to a mutah verse. This is a staggering thing because the people who do it are the very ones who call themselves 'experts.'  But experts in what? They cannot even accept that the meaning they give to verse 4:24 contradicts what Imam Ali said that each verses needs to be collaborted with other verses and a meaning that bring justice, decency and dignity it to be taken.

11. Another absurdity from scholars is that Mahr is for nikkah while Ajar is for Mutah. Ayatullah Tabatabai claims that as the verse mentioned Ajar it, therefore, must mean that the verse is about mutah. But this too is not correct as Ajar means 'gift' and not 'payment.' Secondly the word Ajar is also used for nikkah gifts in the Quran which means that Ajar cannot exculsively  imply mutah. Once again the attempt to justify mutah using 4:24 has not worked.

12. The end part of the verse says that you have to 'mutually agree' with your wives if they want more or less 'ajar.' This is totally against mutah as  there is no ajar after mutah is over and there is no discussion on giving more or less ajar. A new Mutah with the same woman needs a totally new agreement which requires a new mahr and not an agreement on more or less ajar. This end part of the verse is therefore telling us about the ajar of nikkah and is telling us that wives are entitled to the ajar based on their support of their husbands. This part of the verse says that wives are not only entitled to mahr but also to ajars or 'gifts' for their loyalty to their husbands. This aspect of the verse is totally neglected by traditional practice of Islam where husbands do not give 'ajar' to their loyal wives after settling their mahr. This part of the verse is also ignored by those who try to justify mutah as they cannot answer why ajar is mentioned as a 'gift' when there are no agreed gifts in mutah after the mutah is over.


13. In his books Al Mizan the Ayatullah Tabatabai accepts that if the literal meanings of verse 4:24 with it's grammar were to be taken then it would contradict the shia fikh rules on mutah. He says that he has no choice but to change the words in order to fit in with the fikh rules. Hence he changes the word ISTIMATUM in to MUTAH. He says that if the literal meaning of ISTIMATUM is taken then the verse would say that 'if you get pleasure (istimatum) then give your wives the Ajar.' He says that is should be 'if you get mutah then give your wives the Ajar.' So clearly there is no shame in admitting that the original words of the Quran do not fit in with the mutah rules. There is also no shame in changing the words of the Quran to fit in with the fikh rules. In otherwords, it is the Quran that is changed to follow the fikh and not the fikh that is changed to follow the Quran.