Response to Nermin Majlović’s Fabrications: “Who edited Surah 4:24?”
This is a response to the claims from the site “Truth about Islam and Christianity” (author: Nermin Majlović), where it is attempted to “prove” that Surah 4:24 was “edited,” and that a phrase was allegedly removed from it — “for a prescribed period” — in order to hide mutʿah (temporary marriage).
The problem is that this is textually and logically wrong — and this becomes clear the moment one opens the source they themselves rely on.
1) Basic fact: 4:24 in the mushaf does not contain “for a prescribed period”
In the standard Qur’anic text, 4:24 contains no phrase such as:
- “for a specified period”
- “temporarily”
- “for a few days”
The verse speaks about:
- the prohibition of married women (except captives in a war context)
- seeking women “with wealth”
- mahr as an obligation
- and it emphasizes that this is not debauchery (sifāḥ)
Therefore: the text does not promote mutʿah.
Everything else that is inserted comes later through tradition.
2) The main deception in the article: they invoke Ibn ʿAbbās — and Ibn ʿAbbās demolishes them
The author builds the narrative as if “Ibn ʿAbbās says that in the verse there was ‘for a prescribed period.’”
But when one opens Tafsir Ibn ʿAbbās on 4:24, one gets something completely different:
✅ Tafsir Ibn ʿAbbās emphasizes “legitimate marriage, not debauchery”
In the tafsir it stands:
“in honest wedlock, not debauchery”
This is a direct strike at their main label: “mutʿah = legalized prostitution.”
No — the tafsir (and the verse itself) clearly draws the line between:
- the nikāḥ framework (marriage + mahr + obligation)
- and sifāḥ (debauchery, immorality)
3) Second deception: “ʿUmar removed part of the verse from the Qur’an”
This is the heaviest accusation, and they have nothing for it except rhetoric.
Because:
✅ Tafsir Ibn ʿAbbās nowhere says: “and ʿUmar erased part of the verse from the mushaf.”
It speaks about interpretation and legal discussion, not about a “missing Qur’anic text.”
If a part of the Qur’an had truly been erased:
- there would be mass transmission
- there would be a major conflict around the mushaf
- there would be different manuscripts that contain it
But the reality is the opposite: their argument is “one says it like this,” and then “conclusion: the Qur’an was edited for centuries.”
That is not proof — it is propaganda.
4) What Tafsir Ibn ʿAbbās is actually doing (and why this matters)
Tafsir Ibn ʿAbbās lists several possible, meaningful readings of “seek them with your wealth,” for example:
- classical marriage (up to 4 wives)
- the war context of captives
- and it mentions mutʿah as one interpretation that some pushed
But this is the point:
👉 Tafsir is not the mushaf.
Tafsir is opinion and an attempt at explanation.
That is why the fact that some tafsir “mentions mutʿah” is not proof that:
- mutʿah is “in the Qur’an”
- or that it was “removed”
- or that the “original text was different”
It is only proof that tradition later created legal exits.
Now straight to the core: dismantling Sunni dogma + dismantling Christian manipulation
Here a special irony happened:
The Christian author attacks Islam using Sunni tradition, but by doing so he accidentally reveals something else:
👉 the problem is not “the Qur’an,”
but the problem is tradition that tries to manage the text.
Because if someone claims:
- “mutʿah is from 4:24”
- “the Prophet did not abrogate it”
- “then ʿUmar forbade it”
then the question is simple and deadly:
❓How can a caliph forbid what Allah revealed?
If it is truly a divine ruling:
- then ʿUmar has no right to forbid it
- and especially has no right to “regulate” revelation
And if ʿUmar had the right to “fix the practice”:
- then tradition admits that the system was not pure
- and that rulings were not held to the principle “revelation is above everything”
In both cases, the authority of tradition falls.
5) Conclusion (no dogma, only text + logic)
4:24 by itself does not promote mutʿah.
It speaks about nikāḥ (marriage), mahr, and the prohibition of debauchery.
The mutʿah story comes from:
- interpretations
- legal schools
- and hadith disputes
And the claim that “ʿUmar erased part of the verse from the Qur’an” is:
- without evidence from the mushaf
- without mass transmission
- and it destroys the very idea that anyone could “add/remove” from revelation without the immediate collapse of the community
Therefore this article does not prove “corruption of the Qur’an.”
It only shows how tradition is used to force the text into a particular narrative —
whether by Muslim schools, or by Christian attackers.