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  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 21:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is the alleged abrogation case regarding whether the prophet, peace be upon him, can marry again. It is claimed that 33:52 rescinds the allowance stated in 33:50. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


It is clear to me at least that 33:52 is a continuation of 33:50. That is, after the prophet (pbuh) has made his decision of marriage from the list of allowed women mentioned in 33:50, he cannot marry anymore. No abrogation here, simply a final decree.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 05:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
I agree with the continuation interpretation, but I don't know enough about the context to be sure. What I feel strongly about is the same argument as in 73:20. These verses apply only to the Prophet PBUH, so they are in the dynamic phase of the Quran and would have no bearing on the static phase after him insofar as commands are concerned.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:52 abrogate 33:50 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 06:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Let me elaborate what I said. Neither of the two verses is a ruling that applies to anyone alive today. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, they are only statements of the history of the Prophet (PBUH). They give us a background about his marriages that make us understand that they were God's design.

In terms of contradiction, there is no contradiction. The two verses collectively mandate the following consistent rule "the Prophet (PBUH) can marry these women between time A and time B, but not after time B." Nothing contradictory about that.

Just my humble opinion.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 18:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ali, Ibn Abbaas (in one report), Umm Salama, `Aa'isha,
Ad-Dhahhaak,
Ali ibn Al-Husayn,
An-Nahhaas,
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Makki,
Aş-Şa`di (implied),
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Al`Arabi (who said it was the other way around, quoted by Nada),
As-Suyooti,
Az-Zurqaani,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Dr. M.M. Farghali.

Against:
Ubayy ibn Ka`b,
Ibn Abbaas (in another report),
Mujaahid, Ikrima, Abu-Saalih,
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Ikrima, Jaabir ibn Zayd,
Al-Hasan,
Ibn Seereen, As-Suddi,
Abu-Umaama, Ibn Sahl,
Abu-Bakr Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Al-Haarith,
Some Koofi scholars (according to An-Nahhaas),
Ibn Jareer At-Tabari,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2010, 18:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about this case,

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "لا يحل لك النساء من بعد". اختلف المفسرون فيها على قولين:

القول الأول أنها منسوخة بقوله "إنا أحللنا لك أزواجك"، وهذا مروي عن علي وابن عباس وعائشة وأم سلمة وعلي بن الحسين والضحاك. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين قال أبنا البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا عمران بن محمد الأنصاري قال بنا أبو عاصم قال ابنا ابن جريج عن عطاء عن عائشة قالت ما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى أحل له أن ينكح ما شاء قال أبو سلمان الدمشقي يعني نساء جميع القبائل من المهاجرات وغير المهاجرات.

والقول الثاني أنها محكمة ثم فيها قولان: الأول إن الله تعالى أثاب نساءه حين اخترنه بأن قصره عليهن فلم يحل له غيرهن ولم ينسخ هذا. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين قال أبنا البرمكي قال بنا إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال ذكر محمد بن مصفى أن يوسف بن السفر حدثهم عن الأوزاعي عن عثمان بن عطاء عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "لا يحل لك النساء من بعد"، قال حبسه الله عليهن كما حبسهن عليه. قال أبو بكر وبنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم قال بنا حجاج قال بنا حماد عن علي بن زيد عن الحسن "لا يحل لك النساء من بعد"، قال قصره الله على نسائه التسع اللاتي مات عنهن وهذا قول ابن سيرين وأبي أمامة بن سهل وأبي بكر بن عبد الرحمن بن الحارث والسدي.
والثاني أن المراد بالنساء هاهنا الكافرات ولم يجز له أن يتزوج بكافرة قاله مجاهد وسعيد بن جبير وعكرمة وجابر بن زيد


According to that narrative, the claim was actually the other way around, that 33:50 abrogated 33:52! This claim was made by Ali, Aa'isha, Ibn Abbaas, Umm Salama, Ali ibn Al-Husayn and Ad-Dhahhaak. It is most interesting that two of the Prophet's wives have made that claim. How can that be when 33:52 was revealed after 33:50?

The scholars who said 33:52 was not abrogated include Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan, Ibn Seereen, Abu-Umaama ibn Sahl, Abu-Bakr ibn Abd-ir-Rahmaan ibn Al-Haarith and As-Suddiyy. Mujaahid, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Ikrima and Jaabir ibn Zayd all said 33:52 is not abrogated because it means the prophet cannot marry a disbelieving woman.

You may have noticed that Ibn Abbaas is reported for and against the claim?

This should have been a very simple case. First, 33:50 was revealed to let the Prophet (PBUH) know that the women he was married to at the time were all legal wives to him and will continue to be, but that he can, if he wanted to, marry one more or divorce any of them. After he has made that decision, it is final. He cannot marry anymore, per 33:52.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2010, 19:23 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
For:
...
As-Suyooti,
...
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi.

As-Suyooti and Shah Waliullah are for this claim? Strange.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2010, 00:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
As-Suyooti and Shah Waliullah are for this claim? Strange.

It is strange, but according to this post, Shah Waliullah Dehlvi was for it and here is what As-Suyooti wrote about it,

ومن الأحزاب:
قوله تعالى "لا يحل لك النساء" الآية منسوخة بقوله "إنا أحللنا لك أزواجك" الآية


So, he too thinks it's 33:50 that abrogated. He gives so many details about verses of the Quran, yet he does not give any proof that 33:50 was revealed after 33:52 to justify the abrogation claim!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 10 May 2010, 20:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 325-328, rejects this claim on the basis of order of the verses. He reports one important point, that the hadeeth quoting `Aa'isha is very weak according to Ibn Al-Arabi.

He also mentions a very strange opinion of Abu-Saalih, whom he quoted saying that 33:52 forbids the Prophet (PBUH) from marrying a bedouin, but that he can marry from the women of Tihaama as many as he wants even three hundred!

Al-Areedh concludes with what I said above, that the two verses complement each other, that 33:50 specifies the kinds of women he can marry and 33:52 confirms that he cannot marry any other kind of women.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 07:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 332-334, offers a brilliant explanation as he refutes this claim. He says that God has offered the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) a double reward, a special test and a double punishment if they take the test and fail it. This is earlier in the same Chapter,


They accepted, may God have been pleased with them, and they passed the test with flying marks. As a result, God honored them with 33:52, i.e., the Prophet cannot divorce any of them or marry more women!

This explanation is harmonious with the order of the verses in the Chapter and therefore makes a lot of sense.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 18:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:

القول الأول أنها منسوخة بقوله "إنا أحللنا لك أزواجك"، وهذا مروي عن علي وابن عباس وعائشة وأم سلمة وعلي بن الحسين والضحاك. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين قال أبنا البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا عمران بن محمد الأنصاري قال بنا أبو عاصم قال ابنا ابن جريج عن عطاء عن عائشة قالت ما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى أحل له أن ينكح ما شاء


According to that narrative, the claim was actually the other way around, that 33:50 abrogated 33:52! This claim was made by Ali, Aa'isha, ...

In refuting this claim, Dr. Az-Zalmi in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 353-356, quotes Ibn Al`Arabi saying that the hadeeth above attributed to `Aa'isha (RA) is "weak, very weak and cannot be relied on to establish a ruling nor to annul one."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 Dec 2019, 17:33

All times are UTC

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