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  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 22 Jul 2012, 22:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In one lecture, Pragmatic, you noted that both 2:234 and 2:240 start with the exact five words,
والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا

and you said it may give the reader the impression that both verses talk about the same thing. We've shown clearly in this topic that they don't, though they start from the same situation, namely a man who died and left behind a widow.

It occurred to me that perhaps this style exists elsewhere in the Quran. Indeed, it does. Both of these two verses begin with the exact same eight words,

and

And they too do not talk about the same thing! 2:149 emphasizes that the change of Qibla is a truth, (2:144 asserted that the Jews knew it was going to happen!), while 2:150 emphasizes that the change of Qibla is global and permanent. Interestingly enough, this pair of verses precedes the 2:234/2;240 pair, as if to set the stage for understanding the simple notion that two verses may begin with the same words, yet talk about two different subjects!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2012, 09:42 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In one lecture, Pragmatic, you noted that both 2:234 and 2:240 start with the exact five words,
والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا

and you said it may give the reader the impression that both verses talk about the same thing. We've shown clearly in this topic that they don't, though they start from the same situation, namely a man who died and left behind a widow.

It occurred to me that perhaps this style exists elsewhere in the Quran. Indeed, it does. Both of these two verses begin with the exact same eight words, 2:149 and 2:150. And they too do not talk about the same thing! 2:149 emphasizes that the change of Qibla is a truth, (2:144 asserted that the Jews knew it was going to happen!), while 2:150 emphasizes that the change of Qibla is global and permanent. Interestingly enough, this pair of verses precedes the 2:234/2;240 pair, as if to set the stage for understanding the simple notion that two verses may begin with the same words, yet talk about two different subjects!

Very nice. I think it is a powerful tool to find similar situations within the Quran itself that make the point, where these situations have no abrogation controversy so the point being made would not be contradicted even by pro-abrogation scholars.

I have been looking for another case where something similar to the argument in:

viewtopic.php?t=2500&p=5666#p5666

can be observed, with no success so far.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2012, 13:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
I had this thought last night and figured I'd post it here. Verse 2:234 orders men to leave instructions in their wills for living arrangements for their wives after they die. This was a practice of noblemen in pre-Islamic era. The fact that God is turning that practice into an order tells me that God approves it and wants it to cover all couples. Indeed, any gentleman will quickly see that it is the right thing to do for his wife.

My thought was this: What about if a man does not leave such instructions in his will? What happens to the widow? That's when verse 2:40 comes in! It defines the default residence for the widow in her dead husband's house.

If this interpretation is correct, then it's a valid reconciliation of the two verses, which according to validation rule #13, invalidates the abrogation claim. In addition, it makes the order in 2:234 a recommendation rather than a mandate.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 05:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I had this thought last night and figured I'd post it here. Verse 2:234 orders men to leave instructions in their wills for living arrangements for their wives after they die. This was a practice of noblemen in pre-Islamic era. The fact that God is turning that practice into an order tells me that God approves it and wants it to cover all couples. Indeed, any gentleman will quickly see that it is the right thing to do for his wife.

My thought was this: What about if a man does not leave such instructions in his will? What happens to the widow? That's when verse 2:40 comes in! It defines the default residence for the widow in her dead husband's house.

If this interpretation is correct, then it's a valid reconciliation of the two verses, which according to validation rule #13, invalidates the abrogation claim. In addition, it makes the order in 2:234 a recommendation rather than a mandate.

I have a tendancy to stick to one strong argument and substantiate it rather than go for more arguments. I agree with your remark that 2:240 indeed instructs the man to write his will a certain way, but in my mind, 2:234 is a requirement on the woman, not a right for her and does not address residence but abstinence IMHO.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 12 May 2013, 22:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Mannaa` Al-Qattan, in his book مباحث في علوم القرآن, page 236, mentions opinions for and against this claim but does not choose one. He also does not reference either opinion or their authors. The opinion against this claim, he says, is that 2:240 is about a will to a widow who has not left her late husband's house and did not remarry, while 2:234 is about the grace period and thus there is no negation between the two. That implies to me that he rejects the abrogation claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 13:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 48, presents an argument for this claim and another against it and implies he favors the latter.

His argument for the claim is that 2:240 sets residence and support for the widow for a year on the condition that she does not leave, while 2:234 is about the same situation except that it mandates staying four months and ten days and no leaving before then.

His argument against the claim is that 2:240 talks about a will while 2:234 talks about the waiting period.

As we showed earlier, the two verses are not about the same situation; 2:240 is about the obligation upon the will executors and heirs toward the widow, while 2:234 is about the obligation upon the widow.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 19:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 116 in the footnotes, details what Makki had said in his book الإيضاح, page 183, about this claim. He said that Makki had accepted, but was puzzled by the assertion that 2:240 was revealed before 2:234. Makki couldn't understand that since both verses are in the same Chapter.

Faaris's book is a presentation of Abu-Abdillah Shu`la book by the same title. Shu`la made the same assertion about the order of revelation but offered no evidence whatsoever to back it up! And apparently neither did Makki, Ibn Salaama or Dr. Faaris.

So, a statement without foundation is accepted by scholars with nothing more than puzzlement? Wouldn't be more scholarly to assert that the order of revelation of verses is what is in the Quran until proven otherwise? And that the lack of such proof requires a rejection of this abrogation claim for contradicting the obvious logic that the abrogator must follow the abrogated and not the other way around?

Why was it necessary for scholars to resort to such labored reasoning to support an abrogation claim that has no basis because the verses involved do not actually contradict one another?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
I have just read Dehlvi's arguments in support of this claim, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 61. His acceptance is very qualified! He says, "I say it is like he said - abrogated as seen by most exegetes."

Then he adds, "But it can be said that the will for widow accommodation is recommended, or allowed, for the decedent husband, but the widow does not have to stay in his commended residence." He says that was the ruling of Ibn Abbaas and he agrees and says it is apparent from the verse.

I respectfully disagree with that last part. Verse 2:234 clearly states that the widow has to wait four months then she can do whatever she likes.

The dilemma of the pro-abrogation scholars in this case is, IMHO, that they did not conclude the following from the two verses:

  • That the decedent husband is encouraged to leave a will of residence for his wife for one year after his death.
  • That no one has the authority to force the widow to leave before the end of that year.
  • That the widow my leave of her own volition.
  • That the first time she can leave is after four months have passed.

It is that simple.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2014, 19:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
I came across this narration from Mujaahid, reported as authentic by Al-Bukhaari:
عن مجاهد : { والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا } . قال : كانت هذه العدة ، تعتد عند أهل زوجها واجب ، فأنزل الله : { والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا وصية لأزواجهم متاعا إلى الحول غير إخراج فإن خرجن فلا جناح عليكم فيما فعلن في أنفسهن من معروف } . قال : جعل الله لها تمام السنة سبعة أشهر وعشرين ليلة وصية ، إن شاءت سكنت في وصيتها ، وإن شاءت خرجت ، وهو قول الله تعالى : { غير أخراج فإن خرجن فلا جناح عليكم } . فالعدة كما هي واجب عليها . زعم ذلك مجاهد . وقال عطاء : قال ابن عباس : نسخت هذه الآية عدتها عند أهلها ، فتعتد حيث شاءت ، وهو قول الله تعالى : { غير إخراج } . قال عطاء : إن شاءت اعتدت عند أهله وسكنت في وصيتها ، وإن شاءت خرجت ، لقول الله تعالى : { فلا جناح عليكم فيما فعلن } . قال عطاء : ثم جاء الميراث ، فنسخ السكنى ، فتعتد حيث شاءت ، ولا سكنى لها . وعن ابن أبي نجيح ، عن عطاء ، عن ابن عباس قال : نسخت هذه الآية عدتها في أهلها ، فتعتد حيث شاءت ، لقول الله : { غير إخراج } . نحوه .
الراوي: عطاء بن أبي رباح المحدث: البخاري - المصدر: صحيح البخاري - الصفحة أو الرقم: 4531
خلاصة حكم المحدث: [صحيح]؛

Which offers several interpretations of verses 2:234 and 2:240:
  • 2:240 added optional seven months to the required grace period stated in 2:234. That was the interpretation of Mujaahid.
  • The widow can opt to spend the grace period at her husband's place, if he left her such a will. Prior to the revelation of 2:240, a widow customarily spent her grace period at her family's place. That was the interpretation of Ibn `Abbaas.
  • `Ataa' opined that a widow may stay at her willed place or leave, but inheritance verses abrogated the residence allowance (the extra seven months) but not the grace period.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2017, 17:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy, in his book منهج القرآن في تطوير المجتمع, pages 53-55, explains his interpretation of the two verses and concludes that neither one abrogated the other. He makes it clear that the subject and addressee are different in the two verses (see our validation rule #12). The subject in 2:234 is accommodation period and the addressees are the decedent husband's family with whom the widow is mourning, while the subject in 2:240 is mourning period and the addressee is the widow.

Indeed, and that is a very important distinction that has escaped several scholars who saw abrogation in this pair of verses. Ali's opinion, which was later shared by Mujaadid and Ibn Taymiya, was closest to that understanding, as he opined that the widow may choose either of the two periods.

There's no disagreement between scholars that the four-month-and-ten-days period is a mourning period. The problem is that many thought that the one year was also a mourning period that got reduced. The question which was probably on their minds was: What happens after four months and ten days have passed? Those who believe in abrogation implied that the widow should then leave her husband's house!

Dr. Al-Bahiyy says that the verses order the following,
  • A widow must mourn the death of her husband for four months and ten days. She cannot, for example, marry again until that mourning period has elapsed.
  • The in-laws of the widow are advised to provide residence and pay expenses of his widow for a year. That was Al-Bahiyy's interpretation of 2:234! IMHO, the advice is clearly to her husband to state that in his will. Either way, this is important, because some scholars, e.g., `Ataa' opined that inheritance verses abrogated the expenses provision of 2:234, presumably thinking that since the widow has money now, she no longer needs financial support from her in-laws.
    But that argument is easily refuted by the fact that sons are still required to take care of their parent's financial needs even if they inherited money.
  • The widow can leave her husband's house, any time after the mourning period, and do whatever she wishes, e.g., go to her own family's house, marry again, etc. And she can opt to stay the whole year.

It is important to notice that the order in 2:234 is a recommendation, while the order in 2:240 is a mandate. Because they are not in conflict, they can both be complied with. If Al-Bahiyy's interpretation of 2:234 is correct, then the in-laws are under no obligation to accommodate the widow after the mourning period. If the more straightforward interpretation is the correct one, then a man is not obligated to leave such instructions in his will. But if he does, his heirs are now obligated to carry them out.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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 07 Jul 2020, 06:37

All times are UTC

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