TheMostReadBook.org

An English translation of the Quran that is as close as possible to the Arabic sacred text
View active topics
  Verse(s):    
View unanswered posts





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 08:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Scholars have said that the option of ransom for the inability to fast, stated in 2:184, was abrogated by the only option of fasting later as stated in 2:185. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


One obvious argument against abrogation here is that 2:184 continues from 2:183 which mandates fasting but does not say when, while 2:185 specifies the month of Ramadan. Thus, the two verses talk about two different events. 2:184 speaks of fasting in general, which was initially mandated on the 10th of Muharram only and 2:185 speaks of the specific fasting in Ramadan which was established as the only remaining mandated fasting. Now, does that mean that fasting ransom is no longer acceptable? I do not know of anybody among the abrogationists who says that. I am not 100% positive why they don't, but I can see an easy explanation. Both verses mention two categories of exempted people: the sick and the travelers. 2:184 mentions one more category that 2:185 does not and that is الذين يطيقونه "those who can barely do it." So, the ruling for those folks is found in 2:184. 2:185 chose not to repeat it for whatever reason. Since the ruling remains valid, its verse cannot be abrogated. The reason 2:185 does not repeat that category could very well be to refute the abrogation claim of 2:184.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 20:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
I remember this one from a discussion years ago.

The perceived 'conflict' is that verse 2:184 (which elaborates the fasting requirement on Moslems stated in 2:183) has a part that says "..wa ala alladhina yutiqunahu fedyaton.." which was interpreted by some as providing an exception for people not to fast if they find it hard, while verse 2:185 (which identifies Ramadan as the month where fasting is required) does not provide for the same exception.

I don't see a case for abrogation here. The conflict is not between the two verses, but between two interpretations of the above part within verse 2:184. The two interpretations differ in whether the pronoun "hu" (highlighted above) refers to fasting or to feeding a poor person, and also on whether "yutiq" (highlighted above) should be understood by an indirect meaning (find it hard to) or by its direct meaning (can bear or withstand). The two interpretations are reflected in the translations by Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Asad (not a linguistic difference here, but an interpretive difference):

YA: "..For those who can do it (With hardship), is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent.." (part of 2:184)

MA: "..and [in such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person." (same part of 2:184)

Mohammad Asad further comments on the conflict by saying:
Quote:
This phrase has been subject to a number of conflicting and sometimes highly laboured interpretations. My rendering is based on the primary meaning of alladhina yutiqunahu ("those who are capable of it" or "are able to do it" or "can afford it"), with the pronoun hu relating to the act of "feeding a needy person".
I am not taking sides here. I am just focusing on the question "is there a case for abrogation here?" Since there is a reasonable interpretation that implies no conflict between the two verses, I do not see a case for abrogation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2010, 00:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Of particular interest is what Ibn Al-Jawzi reports in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan" about these verses,

وأخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قل أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا بشران قال أبنا إسحاق الكاذي قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا روح قال بنا زكريا بن إسحق قال بنا عمرو بن دينار عن عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس يقرأ "وعلى الذين يطيقونه فدية" قال ليست بمنسوخة وهو الشيخ الكبير والمرأة الكبير لا يستطيعان أن يصوما فيطعما مكان كل يوم مسكينا. أخبرنا أبو بكر العامري قال أبنا علي بن الفضل قال أبنا بن عبد الصمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال أبنا إبراهيم بن حريم قال أبنا عبد الحميد قال أبنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن عكرمة قال كان ابن عباس يقول لم ينسخ

It is often Ibn-Abbaas, may God have been pleased with him, who pointed out abrogation, but in this case he said there was no abrogation, rather 2:184 refers to the elderly.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 17:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
For:
Mu`aazh, Qataada (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Abbaas (in one report per Az-Zalmi on page 132),
Ibn Umar,
Ikrima, `Alqama (ibn Qays?), Al-Hasan (in one report), `Ataa' (in one report), Ad-Dhahhaak (according to At-Tabari, says Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Abi-Layla,
Salama ibn Al-Akwa`,
Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri (in one report),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Makki (quoted by Dr. Faaris in the footnotes on page 107 of his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, from Makki's book الإيضاح, pages 149-150),
An-Nahhaas (in one report),
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
An-Nasfi,
As-Suyooti,
Az-Zurqaani.

Against:
Abu-Hurayra,
`Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah (in another report)
Ibn `Abbaas (in several other reports, per Ar-Raazi quoted by `Ataaya on pages 180-181; also Az-Zalmi on page 133, Al-Ghaali on page 75 and Nada on page 93),
Ikrima,
As-Suddi and Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi (implied),
Al-Hasan Al-Basri 9in another report),
Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri (implied by two other reports),
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,
Mujaahid (according to Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن العزيز, page 74, says Haani Taahir),
Anas ibn Maalik,
Qays ibn As-Saa'ib, Abul-`Aaliya,
Yahya ibn Sa`d and Al-Layth ibn Sa`d,
Saalim ibn Abdillah,
Maalik ibn Anas,
Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Al-Khazraji),
Sufyaan Ath-Thawri,
Abu-Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm,
Rabee`a ibn Abi-Abdirrahmaan Farrookh, Khaalid ibn Ad-Durayk,
Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim and Al-Awzaa`i,
Ash-Shaafi`i,
An-Nahhaas (in another report per Az-Zalmi on page 132),
Al-Bukhaari (according to Dr. Zayd),
Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Qurtubi (who said that the other report from Ibn Abbaas means naskh in general, not abrogation),
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Muhammad Abduh and M. Rasheed Ridha,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M.M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2010, 02:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
In his book, البيان في تفسير القرآن, As-Sayyid Al-Khoo'i writes about this claim and refutes it as follows,

ودعوى النسخ في هذه الآية الكريمة واضحة الثبوت لو كان المراد من الطوق السعة والقدرة، فإن مفاد الآية على هذا: أن من يستطع الصوم فله أن لا يصوم ويعطي الفدية: طعام مسكين بدلا عنه، فتكون منسوخة. ولكن من البين أن المراد من الطاقة: القدرة مع المشقة العظيمة.

وحاصل المراد من الآية: أن الله تعالى بعد أن أوجب الصوم وجوبا تعيينيا في الآية السابقة، وأسقطه عن المسافر والمريض، وأوجب عليهما عدة من أيام أخر بدلا عنه، أراد أن يبين حكما آخر لصنف آخر من الناس وهم الذين يجدون في الصوم مشقة عظيمة وجهدا بالغا، كالشيخ الهرم، وذي العطاش، والمريض الذي استمر مرضه إلى شهر رمضان ألى آخره، فأسقط عنهم وجوب الصوم أداء وقضاء، وأوجب عليهم الفدية، فالآية المباركة حيث دلت على تعيين وجوب الصوم على المؤمنين في الأيام المعدودات، وعلى تعين وجوبه قضاء في أيام أخر على المريض والمسافر، كانت ظاهرة في أن وجوب الفدية تعيينا إنما هو على غير هذين الصنفين اللذين تعين عليهما الصوم، ومع هذا فكيف يدعى أن المستفاد من الآية هو الوجوب التخييري بين الصوم والفدية لمن تمكن من الصوم، وإن أخبار أهل البيت مستفيضة بما ذكرناه في تفسير الآية.

ولفظ الطاقة وإن استعمل في معنى القدرة والسعة إلا أن معناه اللغوي هو القدرة مع المشقة العظيمة، وإعمال غاية الجهد. ففي لسان العرب: "الطوق الطاقة أي أقصى غايته، وهو اسم لمقدار ما يمكنه أن يفعله بمشقة منه". ونقل عن ابن الأثير والراغب أيضا التصريح بذلك. ولو سلمنا أن معنى الطاقة هي السعة كان اللفظ الإطاقة بمعنى إيجاد السعة في الشئ، فلا بد من أن يكون الشئ في نفسه مضيقا لتكون سعته ناشئة من قبل الفاعل، ولا يكون هذا إلا مع إعمال غاية الجهد. قال في تفسير المنار نقلا عن شيخه: "فلا تقول العرب: أطاق الشئ إلا إذا كانت قدرته عليه في نهاية الضعف، بحيث يتحمل به مشقة شديدة".

فالآية الكريمة محكمة لا نسخ لها، ومدلولها حكم مغاير لحكم من وجب عليه الصوم أداء وقضاء. وجميع ما قدمناه مبني على القراءة المعروفة. أما على قراءة ابن عباس، وعائشة، وعكرمة، وابن المسيب حيث قرأوا يطوقونه بصيغة المبني للمجهول من باب التفعيل فالأمر أوضح ـ


He confirms the meaning of يطيقونه as "can barely make it" and as such there can be no abrogation. He also brings out the point that Ibn Abbaas, Aa'isha, Ikrima and Ibn Al-Musayyib, may God have been pleased with them, all recited the word in the passive tense, i.e., يُطَوَّقونه, meaning "made unbearable to them", makes the case even clearer that there is no abrogation. This could very well be why Ibn Abbaas was against the abrogation claim here.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 19 May 2010, 04:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He confirms the meaning of يطيقونه as "can barely make it" and as such there can be no abrogation. He also brings out the point that Ibn Abbaas, Aa'isha, Ikrima and Ibn Al-Musayyib, may God have been pleased with them, all recited the word in the passive tense, i.e., يُطَوَّقونه, meaning "made unbearable to them", makes the case even clearer that there is no abrogation.

Nada dedicates pages 92-97 of his book to this claim, focusing on linguistic evidence (pretty elaborate, with scholarly quotes) that يطيقونه means "can barely do it" and makes the same conclusion that there is no abrogation.

This got me thinking about the claim and its refutation. I don't see how the interpretation of يطيقونه as "can barely do it" or "can easily do it" affects the abrogation claim, since the claim is based on the fact that there is an exception (whatever it is) to the mandate in the first verse but there is no such exception to the mandate in the second verse.

My new view on this is that the first verse institutes the duty of fasting, therefore it includes all exceptions from that duty, while the second verse institutes the timing of fasting, therefore it needs to include only the timing exceptions. The timing exceptions are only those for the sick or traveling, since there is no timing exception for those who are unable to fast at all (regardless of the threshold of what would constitute 'unable').

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 20 May 2010, 03:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
My new view on this is that the first verse institutes the duty of fasting, therefore it includes all exceptions from that duty, while the second verse institutes the timing of fasting, therefore it needs to include only the timing exceptions. The timing exceptions are only those for the sick or traveling, since there is no timing exception for those who are unable to fast at all (regardless of the threshold of what would constitute 'unable').

How insightful! I don't recall reading a similar argument elsewhere. It reminds me of the many claims that the Zakah verse, 9:60, has abrogated the charity verses. It only specified whom charity is to be given to, that's all.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 05:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On page 336 of his book, Ihab discusses this abrogation claim, but he makes a sophomoric mistake IMHO. He reversed the abrogated and abrogating (does this mean هلكت وأهلكت ? :D), then argued that the exemption for difficulty in 2:184 is an exception from the command to fast Ramadan in 2:185, so it is not abrogation. Strange glitch.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 23:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Al-Ghali makes three main points on pages 71-76 of his book as he refutes this abrogation claim, which include some original angles.

  1. There are credible narrations of the Sahaba supporting this abrogation claim, and there are credible narrations opposing it, and in one case by the same Sahabi (Ibn Abbas).

  2. Al-Ghali argues that if 2:185 had abrogated the hardship allowance given by 2:184, it would not have been befitting to include "God intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship" in 2:185.

  3. Al-Ghali asks, if 2:184 was indeed abrogated, what would the elderly do who have difficulty fasting, since 2:185 only allows fasting to be postponed, not to be substituted by charity?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 15:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam discusses this claim at great length in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 47-70 and agrees with the claim.

Ibn Salaam quotes several versions of the hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in which he says, "It is not of goodness to fast while traveling." Reported by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu-Daawood, An-Nasaa'i, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Hanbal, Ad-Daarimi, and Ibn Khuzayma and narrated by Ka`b ibn`Aasim Al-Ash`ari and Jaabir ibn Abdillah.

That hadeeth confirms that there is no abrogation case that can be made here, since the abrogation claim assumes that fasting is always the better option. It's not.

Ibn Salaam divides up scholars opinions on this claim nicely into the following divisions:

  1. People who said 2:185 abrogated 2:184 because ransom was allowed in 2:184 but only fasting is allowed in 2:185. Among those are: Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Abi-Layla, Ibn Abbaas, Salama ibn Al-Akwa`, `Alqama ibn Qays and Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri. Ibn Salaam agrees with them. He incorrectly assumed that the verb يطيقونه meant "can do it" instead of "can barely do it."

    This argument is erroneous because it assumes that the clause فليصمه (then let him fast it) in 2:185 is a replacement of the clause فدية طعام مسكين (a ransom of a meal for a poor person) in 2:184. There is simply no cause for confusing the two subjects of the two verses. To elaborate:

    • 2:184 talks about the special circumstances of people who can barely fast. They should ransom but fasting is still better.
    • 2:185 talks generally about people who "witness the month of Ramadhaan." That means they are present, not traveling, and are healthy. They have to fast. The evidence is that the specific circumstances of the sick and the traveling are immediately mentioned after it, so they are not included in "who witness the month."

  2. People who said that 2:184 allows ransom but prefers fasting. Of those are Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri. In fact, he said that the clause فمن تطوع خيرا فهو خير له (and he who volunteers good, it is better for him) meant those who ransom and fast!

  3. People who said that 2:184 is not abrogated because the verb used in it is يطوقونه (cannot do it). Of those are: Ikrima, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Mujaahid, and Ibn Abbaas. Ibn Salaam says this is not the established recitation. I'd add that it is also unnecessary for refuting the abrogation claim.

  4. People who said that the sick and the traveling have two choices: fast other days or ransom. Ibn Salaam says that has been the Sunna and quotes thirteen hadeeths confirming it. How can anyone debate the matter after that?

  5. People who said that the traveling must not fast, based on the hadeeth quoted in the beginning of this post. Ibn Salaam says the reason for this hadeeth is that those who fast while traveling have turned down God's license to them and that's why their fast is not good. I agree. They should either ransom or fast other days, which is the better option, after they arrive home.

  6. People who said that old people who cannot fast must not and should ransom instead. Of those are: Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Ikrima, Anas ibn Maalik, Qays ibn As-Saa'ib, Abul-`Aaliya, Ibn Abbaas, Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Abu-Hurayra, `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah, Yahya ibn Sa`eed, Abu-Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm, Al-Layth, Maalik. Ibn Salaam agrees with them and so do I.

  7. People who said that old people who cannot fast must not and they don't even have to ransom. Of those are: Rabee`a ibn Abi-Abdirrahmaan Farrookh, Khaalid ibn Ad-Durayk and Maalik ibn Anas. I respectfully disagree because there is no such provision in either verse.

  8. People who said that those who are deathly thirsty must not fast but ransom instead. Of those are: Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Ikrima and Saalim ibn Abdillah. I certainly agree.

  9. People who said that pregnant and nursing women must not fast but ransom instead and when nursing is over have to make up the fast (!). Of those are: Ibn Umar and Mujaahid. I respectfully disagree; they only have to do one or the other.

  10. People who said that pregnant and nursing women must not fast but ransom instead and when nursing is over they do not make up the fast. Of those are Ibn Abbaas, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Al-Hasan, `Ataa', Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim, Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Maalik and Al-Awzaa`i. I agree.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently 25 Jun 2018, 09:52

All times are UTC

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group