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  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 17:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Dehlvi, in his famous book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 59, accepts this claim, but adds that the hadeeth "no bequest for an heir" explains the "abrogation."

He does not elaborate, but I think that he is referring to the point he made several times throughout the book, namely, that the meaning of the word "naskh" is much more general than the strict definition of the foundationists. That is, the word means "any subsequent statement regarding a prior ruling." If that is what he meant, then I certainly agree and it would also mean that he did not actually believe that this case is an abrogation case, but rather an elaboration.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2020, 23:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 63-71, rejects this claim by offering these refutation arguments,
  • Al-Zamakhshari argued that the two verses, 2:180 and 4:11 suggest that a bequest may be given to parents in addition to their regular inheritance share. Al-Asfahani suggested likewise.
  • Al-Zamakhshari also argued that 2:180 did not specify the amount of the shares to give and 4:11 elaborated on that. That was the opinion of Al-Asfahani too. Al-Raazi agreed.
  • Al-Shawkani argued that the parents mentioned in 2:180 are parents who do not inherit, such as non-Muslim parents. And the relatives mentioned in 2:180 are relatives that are not named in 4:11, such as siblings of the mother. Al-Qurtubi wrote that this opinion was offered by Ad-Dhahhaak, Tawoos, and Al-Hasan.
  • Ibn Al-Arabi، in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 30, wrote that there is no contradiction between 2:180 and 4:11 since a bequest to relatives is allowed by the majority. As for the claim that it was the hadith "No bequest to an heir", he argued that the hadeeth must be certain in sourcing (متواتر) before it may be considered for the abrogation of a verse. He noted that the hadeeth is not even authentic! (ليس له في الصحة أصل)
  • Imam Muhammad Abduh, in his exegesis (تفسير المنار) rejected the abrogation claim and said that it is quite proper in some cases to bequest to a poor heir in addition to his or her regular share.
  • Al-Ghaali leans toward the opinion that 2:180 is a recommendation and not a mandate. He mentioned that Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote that Al-Shaabi and Al-Nakhei both opined it. Their evidence is the word بالمعروف (properly) and that suggests a recommendation, and also the word المتقين (the pious) and a mandate is not restricted only to the pious. I respectfully disagree. I see the word بالمعروف to mean "as customary" and the word المتقين as an incentive to people to obey the command, so that may be counted among the pious. The words كُتِب عليكم (it has been written upon you) is unambiguous about the command being a mandate and the word حقا (a right) is unambiguous about the will being the right of surviving parents and relatives.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


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 28 Feb 2020, 06:16

All times are UTC

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