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  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 14:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Not sure I agree. If the harm is the reduction of one's share, that will result from any bequest, even if it is to a non-heir. If the harm is seeing another heir get more than they are 'entitled' to, then there is a point, although calling it harm is a bit shaky.

I think it's the latter. People who favor one son over another, for instance, may bequest to him and thus give him more than his brother. This is IMHO what the epilogue of 4:11 talks about when it says, "Your fathers and your sons - you do not know whom are more beneficial to you. This is a decree from God and God is ever All-Knowing and Wise."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 14:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
While not affecting the abrogation claim, Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 178-181 discusses an interesting issue: Can a testator bequest to non-relatives?

He quotes Muslim ibn Yasaar and Al-`Alaa; ibn Ziyaad saying no and giving for evidence 2:180 which states that a will can only be to parents and relatives. Masrooq ibn Al-Ajda` Al-Hamadaani also ruled so. Also, `Ubaydullah ibn `Ubaydillah ibn Mu`ammar, Muhammad ibn Seereen, Al-Hasan and Taawoos (who ruled that a bequest to non-relatives is forbidden and is given instead to the relatives).

But others said it's OK to bequest to non-relatives. Among those, Ibn Salaam said, were Sufyaan Ath-Tawri, Ibn Mas`ood, Abud-Dardaa' (implied), Ibn `Amr and the majority. Ibn Salaam agrees with them. The evidence Sufyaan used is a narration by Al-Hasan ibn `Amr Al-Faqami who said that Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, who is from the Nakh` tribe, bequested to him who is from the Banu Tameem tribe.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010, 15:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
This is another example Jamaal `Ataaya gives to illustrate his discussion about the purpose of openness of text in the Quran. The will/bequest verse, 2:180, provides a default framework for inheritance. It sets a principle and tenet of faith, that the transfer of a decedent's property must be formalized with a will. There must not be the situation when parents and kin find themselves deprived of their rightful share of their deceased relative's wealth.

Within that framework, the inheritance verses, 4:11-12 work. They confirm the framework by specifying those rightful shares and confirm the honoring of wills and bequests. What people thought was cause for abrogation is that they thought that the will verse allowed the testator to bequeath shares willynilly to whomever he chooses from his relatives. That's not at all what it says. It simply states the principle. If it wanted to give the testator a freehand at bequests, it would have had language to support that, such as كيف شئتم (as you please).

`Ataaya rejects this claim on that basis and on the observation that 4;11-12 honor wills and bequests, so they confirm, rather than abrogate 2:180.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 18:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
But what do Muslims do in a non-Muslim country or for that matter any country where the Islamic law of inheritance is not followed or enforced? The answer is that the probate court there will first check the decedent's will and rule per its instructions unless they are in violation of the laws of the land. Thus, 2:180 was not abrogated because Muslims still need it in such case.

Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 77-83, refutes this claim and quotes Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood from his exegesis saying the same thing I said in the above quote. Here I am again, thinking that I came up with a novel angle, only to discover that somebody else beat me to it :)

Taahir discusses scholars opinions about this claim and points out something interesting: Verse 2:180 could not possibly have been abrogated since God emphasizes it with the phrases كتب عليكم (Written upon you) and حقا على المتقين (a right upon the pious) and in the next verse threatens those who will replace it!

That observation was made by Al-Qaasimi in his exegesis محاسن التأويل, volume 3, pages 413-414. Imaam Muhammad Abduh said likewise. He was quoted by M. Rasheed Ridha in his exegesis تفسير المنار, volume 2, pages 136-141. He wrote that some scholars have allowed a bequest to heirs who inherit but, in the view of the testator, do not inherit enough. For instance, they are poor and without a means of support.

This is indeed a real problem. The Islamic law gives shares of inheritance the way it does because it also mandates financial support upon those who inherit more toward those who inherit less. But people do not always observe that and governments do not always enforce it. The result is that people who inherit less end up with the short end of the stick. Imaam Abduh, therefore, agrees with the scholars of old who allowed bequests to be given to some heirs for reasons such as that.

One of those scholars of old was Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri, who said that a bequest is allowed for heirs who do not inherit because they are slaves, disbelievers or end up with nothing after applying inheritance rules. I was surprised to read that from Ibn Hazm, especially the part about bequests to non-believers.

Ash-Sha`bi and An-Nakh`i both said that a bequest is recommended but not required. I don't understand how they can say that when the verse starts out with the words "It is written upon you". Taawoos and Ad-Dhahhaak said that it is required for kin who do not normally inherit.

On page 162, Taahir adds, "A will to parents is not always necessary, but sometimes it is." Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 73, says that the share given to parents can be too little and that's why, he is convinced, a will to them remains a valid option.

Taahir continues, "This matter has been in debate between scholars regardless of their views on abrogation."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 21:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri mentions some good points as he refutes this claim on pages 71-75 of his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟:

  • Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri rejected this claim because, he said, "Abrogation is cancellation of ruling and stating another in its place. There is nothing in the inheritance verses, 4:11-12, that annuls bequests for parents and relatives."

  • Mustafa Khafaaji (in his book صفوة الكلام في أصول الأحكام, page 124) and Ibn Al-Jaarood (in his commentary on Ash-Shaafi`i's famous book الرسالة, page 4) both said that the hadeeth that says "There shall be no bequest to an heir" is uncertain in its authenticity. Ibn Al-Jaarood thinks that it is this hadeeth which Ash-Shaafi`i has indicated that some of its narrators are unknown.

  • Al-Jabri says 2:180 has two words of emphasis, كتب عليكم (it has been written upon you) and حقا (a right), so how can it possibly be abrogated?

  • Imaam Muhammad Abduh wrote that the majority of scholars have ruled that bequests are legitimate. Some have made it unlimited and others made it specific to non-heirs. So, why, he wonders, is this insistence that it was abrogated when God has emphasized it? It is only the effect of blind following!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 20:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book, تفسير الأصفهاني (Exegesis of Al-Asfahaani), Dr. Khidhr Nabha reports that Al-Asfahaani rejected that 2:180 was abrogated. He saw it as a general ruling and 4:11-12 as specific.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd agrees, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 95-96 (item 820). He quotes a hadeeth, reported by Muslim and narrated by Ibn Umar (RA), in which the Prophet (PBUH) said,

"It is not right for any Muslim, who has something to bequeath, to let two nights pass without having a written will with him."

He quotes that hadeeth as evidence that a will is required, per some scholars. Other scholars, he said, opined that a will is only preferred.

He propounds the interpretations of scholars, which influenced their conclusion about the abrogation claim,

  • According to At-Tabari's exegesis, volume 3, pages 385-388, Al-Hasan, Jaabir ibn Zayd, Abdul-Malik ibn Ya`la, Taawoos, Ad-Dhahhaak, Masrooq, Abul-`Aaliya, Ash-Sha`bi, Abdul-Malik ibn Amr and Laahiq ibn Hameed all interpreted the verse to mean the parents and other relatives who do not inherit. As a result,

    1. The verse is not abrogated by inheritance laws since it covers only those who do not inherit by law.
    2. A will giving a third of the estate to other than parents and kin must be:
      1. Revoked and given instead to parents and kin who do not inherit by law, said Taawoos, or
      2. Two thirds of it is revoked and given to parents and kin who do not inherit by law, said Al-Hasan, Jaabir and Ibn Ya`la.

  • According to At-Tabari's exegesis, volume 3, pages 388-390, Ibn Abbaas, Taawoos, Qataada, Al-Hasan, Ar-Rabee`, Muslim ibn Yasaar, Al-`Alaa' ibn Zayd, and Iyaas ibn Mu`aawiya all said that a will for parents and relatives who do inherit by law was allowed at first then abrogated. At-Tabari disagrees because, he argues, abrogation is total elimination of a prior ruling and that did not happen to 2:180.

  • According to At-Tabari's exegesis, volume 3, pages 390-393, Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umar, Ikrima, Al-Hasan, Shurayh, Qataada, Mujaahid, As-Suddi, Naafi` and Ibrahim An-Nakh`i opined that no will is allowed at all and therefore, 2:180, was totally abrogated.

    I find it hard to believe that they said that since 4:11-12 state unambiguously that bequests and debts are to be settled first before the heirs get their shares!

I'm sure you also noticed the conflicting opinions of Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan, Taawoos and Qataada.

Dr. Zayd sees no contradiction between 4:11-12 and 2:180 since a set of relatives covered by the generality in 2:180 are left out of the specific set of relatives covered by 4:11-12. He asks, "What happens to those folks?" he also sees that hadeeth narrated by Ibn Umar, quoted above, as evidence confirming 2;180 and thus refuting the abrogation claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 14:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book النسخ عند الأصوليين (Abrogation per the Foundationsists), pages 80-81, Dr. Ali Jum`a, the Mufti of Egypt, rejects this abrogation claim on four grounds, [one of them is]
  • The relatives mentioned in 2:180 could be ones who do not inherit by law.

This is the refutation argument offered by Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 46. His words are:
وجه الإحكام أن الوصية باقية فيمن حرم الميراث

Translation: The reason why there is no abrogation is that a bequest is still valid to those who did not inherit.

But I think both gentlemen are missing the point, which is that the command in 2:180 is a mandate of a will, evidenced by the words كتب عليكم (it is written upon you). After inheritance laws were revealed, wills became optional and unnecessary. I think that's why Dehlvi approved this claim.

The better argument, IMHO, is that 2:180 mandates a legal document to guarantee the rights of heirs and that inheritance laws, if applied, take the place of a legal document. That is not abrogation, because if inheritance laws are not enforced, the legal will becomes required again.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2013, 17:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He also mentioned that Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Taawoos, Al-Alaa' ibn Yazeed, Muslim ibn Yasaar and Ad-Dhahhaak all said 2:180 is not abrogated.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 105-106, mentions more details about what Ad-Dhahhaak and Tawwoos have said. They ruled that a bequest to parents and other relatives who do not inherit is required upon every Muslim approaching death. They actually taught that failure to do so is a sin.

The verifier of the book, Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, added that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Al-Hasan had opined that 2:180 was abrogated by

I don't understand that. 4:7 simply states that sons and daughters should inherit from their parents. It has nothing in common with 2:180.

So, is a bequest to those who do not inherit required or not? If you apply the Islamic laws of inheritance, you will notice that fathers and mothers are never left out of the inheritance. So the only category of heirs remaining from 2:180 is other relatives. I see 4:11-12 detailing what those relatives get. That is naskh but not abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 21:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
That is naskh but not abrogation.

I would suggest that we say "that is elaboration (or some other English word) but not abrogation" rather than transliterate the Arabic word naskh. In the Arabic version, I would suggest "هذا تفصيل وليس إبطال" to avoid circular arguments.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 19:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4537
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
That is naskh but not abrogation.

I would suggest that we say "that is elaboration (or some other English word) but not abrogation" rather than transliterate the Arabic word naskh. In the Arabic version, I would suggest "هذا تفصيل وليس إبطال" to avoid circular arguments.

And I would agree. I wasn't trying to make a circular argument, but rather attepmt to explain why the scholars used the word naskh in their stated opinions. They may not have meant abrogation at all. Those who thought that's what they meant are the ones to blame.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
It is currently 20 Apr 2021, 18:45

All times are UTC

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