The question/claim: "An-Nisā 4:24 actually permits temporary/fixed-term marriage (mut‘a). The phrase 'fa-mā-stamta‘tum bihinna minhunna fa-ātūhunna ujūrahunna farīḍatan' means 'so for whatever you have enjoyed from them, give them their fees as an obligation'; 'istimtā‘' is enjoyment and 'ajr/ujūr' is the payment given. Moreover, in the readings attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās, Ubayy b. Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ūd the verse was recited with the addition 'ilā ajalin musammā' (for a specified term), and this reading is transmitted in classical Sunni tafsīr, including al-Ṭabarī. So a fixed-term union is a plain Qur'anic ruling; the one who later banned it was not the Qur'an but ‘Umar, speaking from the pulpit."
Context
Let us first isolate a historical core everyone accepts: mut‘a (a marriage contracted for a set period against a dower) was lawfully practiced for a stretch during the Prophet's time — both Sunni and Shia sources concede this. The real dispute is not "was it ever lawful?" but "was that ruling later abrogated (naskh)?" The contested clause of 4:24 is rendered "give the women from whom you have benefited their dowers/fees as an obligation" (M. Okuyan meal). The two pivotal words are "istimtā‘" (benefit/enjoyment) and "ajr/ujūr" (fee/dower).
Two readings
The Sunni majority (jumhūr) reading — permanent marriage. Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310) reports that the preferred view is "istimtā‘ = marriage and intercourse, ajr = the dower," and that this is the position of the majority of scholars. (The same al-Ṭabarī also transmits the "ilā ajalin musammā" reading; so both the variant reading and the majority permanent-marriage interpretation are found in his work.) Al-Zajjāj (d. 311) states that those who read the verse as referring to mut‘a fall into a grave error; al-Rāzī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Māturīdī, al-Bayḍāwī and al-Nasafī likewise prefer the permanent-marriage reading (or hold that the mut‘a sense was abrogated). This group's strongest intra-Qur'anic argument is consistency (interpretation): the very same word "ujūrahunna" appears in 4:25 (marriage to believing bondwomen) and 5:5 (marriage to women of the People of the Book) for the dower of an unambiguously PERMANENT marriage; so in 4:24 too "fee" means dower. A second Sunni strand accepts that the verse was initially revealed regarding mut‘a BUT holds that it was later abrogated; the abrogation evidence is (a) other verses (notably 23:5-7 and 4:3, which limit lawful sexuality to spouses and those one rightfully possesses — interpretation), (b) a report from ‘Alī that the Prophet forbade mut‘a on the day of Khaybar, and (c) ‘Umar's ban. Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Khaṭṭābī and al-Māzirī transmit a consensus (ijmā‘) on the permanence of the ban.
Qur'an-centred / academic reading — permanent marriage. Mehmet Okuyan (kuranokuyan.com) reads the verse explicitly as permanent marriage: the text points "not, as supposed, to a temporary companionship, i.e. mut‘a marriage, but to a marriage actually to be realized," and he takes "ajr" as the dower. The firmest intra-Qur'anic support for this is again the coherence principle (interpretation): the word in 4:24 matches its dower sense in 4:25 and 5:5. Academic literature (e.g. Sachiko Murata, "Mut‘a: Temporary Marriage in Islamic Law") accepts the historical fact: mut‘a was lawful for a period and 4:24 was linked to that context by many early authorities; the real dispute is abrogation.
Shia reading — lawful until the Day of Judgement. Shia jurisprudence in the line of Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq treats mut‘a as a legitimate type of marriage and continues it. This reading rests on the reading with "ilā ajalin musammā" (for a specified term) ascribed to Ibn ‘Abbās, Ubayy and Ibn Mas‘ūd, and on the weakness of the abrogation evidence: ‘Umar's own words — "two mut‘as that were lawful in the Messenger's time I forbid and punish" (mut‘a of women and mut‘a of ḥajj), transmitted in Saʿīd b. Manṣūr's Sunan, Musnad Aḥmad 14479 (from Jābir b. ‘Abdullāh) and al-Nasāʾī — are open to the reading that the ban came from the caliph's ijtihād, not from the Qur'an.
Honest limit
Where the objection is right: 4:24 really has, historically, been associated with mut‘a; saying so is no distortion — many early authorities and the variant reading al-Ṭabarī transmits show this. And since the abrogation claim rests not on a single decisive text but on ḥadīth and caliphal practice, it is genuinely contestable.
But the objection also has two limits. First, what is textually certain: the same word "ujūr/ajr" is used in 4:25 and 5:5 for the dower of ordinary/permanent marriage, so equating "fee = commercial/prostitution payment" is a linguistic stretch (interpretation). Second, on the framing: even in Shia law mut‘a involves a contract, a dower, a fixed term and an ‘idda (waiting period), and the resulting child's lineage is established; in the Ja‘farī tradition the casual abuse of mut‘a is discouraged (the exact wording of the saying often ascribed to Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, "only the depraved do this," itself warrants separate verification). Reducing mut‘a to "paid sex / prostitution" therefore over-simplifies both the Sunni and the Shia frames. Note: the soundness of the "ilā ajalin musammā" reading is assessed differently in Sunni and Shia sources; that is itself a point of dispute. The meaning of 23:5-7, 4:25 and 5:5 is accurate, but the exact word-for-word rendering warrants separate verification.
Related articles
Source: Qur'anic verses (M. Okuyan meal). Presented soberly and respectfully, with a text/interpretation distinction.