101 Reasons Why We Left Islam – Chapter 1: Abrogation– Reason 4
Before you skip this section by saying that this is Shia thing and has nothing to do with mainstream Islam, remember that the topic is about its abrogation. Its abrogation comes directly from Sunni source and as such it fits this chapter alongside other issues.
Shia call it Mut’a Marriages (Pleasure Marriages) and some Sunni sources mention it as Misyar Marriages (Convenience Marriages). In both cases, it is about a fixed short-term marriage between a man and woman for sexual intercourse that could be a little as one hour or few days. These women have no spouse rights such as living together, equal divisions, inheritance, or financial support beyond that payment given part of the sexual arrangement.
Translators have gone to extreme lengths to cover the meaning of this verse, these are not consistent with the Tafsir or the authentic Hadith. For this reason, we are using the only translations that stuck to the wording of the verse – Arberry Transition and Sahih International but without the added brackets of the translates. Verse 4:23 speaks about ‘what is prohibited in marriages’ and Quran 4:24 continues by saying.
Arberry Translation: “and wedded women, save what your right hands own. So God prescribes for you. Lawful for you, beyond all that, is that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, give them their wages apportionate; it is no fault in you in your agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-knowing, All-wise.”
Sahih International Translation: “And married women except those your right hands possess. The decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are beyond these, that you seek them with your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”
Other translations and apologists have suggested that the verse is referring to Dowry, but that is not the case. The verse uses a very clear Arabic word:
(أجورهن)
The word is clearly about payment and wages are associated with a service. The verse also says, ‘you enjoy / pleasure you’, not ‘you marry’ or ‘seek in marriage’. The wages are linked to enjoyment. Also, Dowry is completely different thing. For one thing, dowry involves the parents of the girl and the prospective husband agree on the payments of marriage. If they disagree, the marriage will not take place. This verse is talking about wages, meaning a service following the word “pleasure you” and using the female tense, urging men to be fair and pay them women their wages. Thus, the context of the verse talks about the wages in very different context to marriage.
https://quran.com/4:24/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
Also, Al-Jalalain or Tabari, they all confirm that this is about temporary marriages. And if you are still adamant that the Tafsir that is written by well-respected scholars are liars, would you call narrators of the Hadith also liars?
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1405b
And it gets very embarrassing when you hear how casual Mut’a marriages were discussed:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5116
In fact, we found 18 different Hadiths about temporary marriages on Sunnah.com.
https://sunnah.com/search?q=mut%27a
Then came the abrogation. And we have several Hadiths that explain how the abrogation took place. The one that explains it the best, is this one by Ibn Majah:
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said:
“When ‘Umar bin Khattab was appointed caliph, he addressed the people and said: ‘The Messenger of Allah permitted temporary marriage for us three times, then he forbade it. By Allah, If I hear of any married person entering a temporary marriage, I will stone him to death, unless he can bring me four witnesses who will testify that the Messenger of Allah, allowed it after he forbade it’.”
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1963
This remains, till today, a point of contention between Sunnis and Shia. With Shia insisting that temporary marriages are allowed under specific circumstances, such as when a woman becomes a widow. The rationale given is that if she cannot get remarried permanently, then this offers a humane way for her to get companionship and income. In a male dominated world, Shia claim that this is a justified way and legal under Islam. Thus, Shia will probably agree with our Issue 4.1.
Issue 4.1. Can the Prophet abrogate the word of Allah from the Quran? Can anyone abrogate a verse from the Quran without another verse that abrogate it? In any other context, if you ask an Islamic Scholar, can the Prophet replace or abrogate the words of Allah in the Quran, you will get an unequivocal denial. Quran is clear in verses 6:115 and 18:27 that no one can change the word of Allah except Allah himself.
Issue 4.2. For a religion that attacks the moral grounds of the West that allows women the freedom over their body or choice of partners then uses that platform to attack others, this is hypocrisy! Does it not shock you that, even for while, there was a ruling that allowed in effect prostitution in Islam. It is evident that until the third Calipha, Umar, the practice was widespread enough to cause him to get heavy handed with treat of stoning. The reality is that several branches of Sunni Islam in Egypt and Saudi Arabia believe Misyar Marriages remain valid as pragmatic approach to men who travel and are far from their wives.
Apologists Response:
Issue 4.1: The Prophet can set a ruling as not everything is stated in the Quran as a ruling. We have multiple Hadiths in which the Prophet sets ruling that are not mentioned in the Quran. The Prophet did not change the words of Allah. That is why we still have the verses in the Quran. The Prophet put an end to the practice that was not necessarily made legal in the Quran anyway. The Quran saying to be fair in paying these women their wages after we enjoyed them, does not make it a ruling.
>> Our response: This is holding onto semantics. The verse is an order to pay wages to these women who men enjoyed them. Thus, this verse makes it a ruling the same way verse 31:4 makes it a ruling to pay Zakhat. Of course, the Prophet can make rulings as he has done multiple times in the Hadith but none of these ruling was in effect changing the meaning or cancelling a verse in the Quran. We say this because in effect, Islamic scholars had to either explain in the Tafsir that the Prophet cancelled this or later the translators had to invent a new meaning for this. Also, no direct communications are recorded between Allah and Muhammad except that flying donkey trip. Anything else had to be via Jibril and would have made it into the Quran.
Issue 4.2: It is shocking that people who left Islam and would usually argue that women should have control over their bodies, be making an issue out of this ruling. At least in the limited circumstances where this is allowed, it shows humane approach and support for women who become widows. For men who travel, it avoids them falling into sin. This ruling is pragmatic and not open door for prostitution.
>> Our response: This is a deflection. For we did not put this reason under morality concerns in Islam. We put this under Abrogation reasons. There is something to be said where a Prophet would abrogate a verse instead of Allah sending a new verse as the case in other abrogation. You will rarely find a Dawah person admitting that temporary marriages were ever allowed under Islam unless they are Shia.
Final Thought:
Most Muslim women are completely unaware of the concept of temporary marriages in Islam, and this represents a turning point. For when they are introduced to Islam, be that from birth or through conversion, it is always in contrast to how Islam provides a higher moral ground to the West or other faiths. The realisation that it has all these ‘under the table’ forms of sexual arrangements present the pretext to realising Islam is man made for men. Men engaged in temporary marriages are simply paying for sex. The only difference between Sunni and Shia are the terms and conditions in the small print. But for men who study it, they cannot escape the fact that it is in the Quran, it is the words of Allah, and no one can replace or abrogate the words of Allah except Allah himself.