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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010, 17:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, using the same argument I mentioned in the OP, namely that 33:52 is a continuation of the statement started in 33:50. Thus, the meaning is "after the women allowed you in 33:50, you cannot marry again." This was At-Tabari's interpretation and `Ataaya agrees.

Az-Zurqaani acknowledges that the order of verses poses a problem for the pro-abrogation folk here, but says that it shouldn't because "what matters is the order of revelation." `Ataaya ridicules this argument by asking, "How does one know the exact order of revelation? We cannot assume the order of verses in a Chapter to be different from the revelation order, without authentic evidence and there is none." I agree, and add that the same argument can be said for any abrogation claim: why don't you say that your claim is the other way around?!

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa says the same thing in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 55-56.

_________________
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: 28 Oct 2010, 02:04 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
the same argument can be said for any abrogation claim: why don't you say that your claim is the other way around?!

I agree, and in this case it is a labored choice based on the order of verses and their wording. The verb in "We made it permitted" is in past tense in 33:50 and "It is not permitted" is in present tense in 33:52. The conclusion is that the two verses say "so far We have allowed, from now on it is not allowed" is rather obvious. No abrogation in either direction.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:50 abrogate 33:52 or the other way around?
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2010, 17:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The verb in "We made it permitted" is in past tense in 33:50 and "It is not permitted" is in present tense in 33:52. The conclusion is that the two verses say "so far We have allowed, from now on it is not allowed" is rather obvious.

Excellent point.

_________________
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 Dec 2010, 17:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd discusses this claim, which he rejects, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 252-257 (items 1124-1133). Kudos to Dr. Zayd, who finally reveals why some scholars have advocated what is so illogical, namely, that a preceding verse abrogated a following verse! It turns out that this may have been caused by the writing of Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 43. Al-Baghdaadi lists this claim as one of those claims over which there was consensus. Dr. Zayd shows that was not the case.

What Al-Baghdaadi wrote is his opinion, I suppose, about the circumstances of revelation of these two verses. He says that God has given the Prophet (PBUH) a choice between the treasures of the earth, without reducing his reward with God in the Hereafter even a mosquito's wing worth, and between contentment with what he had. The Prophet (PBUH) chose what he had. Then God commanded him to give his wives a choice, as He stated in 33:28-29,

They all chose the Prophet (PBUH), except, Al-Baghdaadi writes, a woman named Umm Jameel, who chose to leave. The Prophet (PBUH) divorced her, and she was miserable ever since until she died poor. Those wives who chose to stay with the Prophet (PBUH), God rewarded them by forbidding the Prophet (PBUH) from marrying again.

Then, Al-Baghdaadi writes, when Islam spread wide and war booty became plenty, God allowed him what He previously forbade him, namely, to marry more women.

While that may explain the cause of this strange abrogation claim, it begs the question: How come nobody else, including the pro-abrogation folk, ever told this story to back up his claim? Did none of them know about it? Or did they know it wasn't true?

Doesn't that story necessarily imply that God withdrew His reward for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH)? God forbid!

And who is this Umm Jameel? I never heard of her before. If she was married to the Prophet (PBUH) and chose to leave him, wouldn't that have been the talk of the town? How is it that her story is left out of the many classic books I read?

Dr. Zayd refutes the claim on the basis of no contradiction. He first draws attention to the words من بعد (from now on) in verse 33:52. It means forever, so how can it possibly get abrogated?

Dr. Zayd then ridicules Al-Baghdaadi's reasoning that the situation changed when booty became plenty. That means the reason the Prophet (PBUH) was limited to his current wives was because of his poverty! But the man said that the reason for revealing 33:52 was not poverty, but to reward the wives who stayed with the Prophet (PBUH).

Dr. Zayd then knocks down Al-Baghdaadi's claim that consensus was that 33:50 abrogated 33:52, since At-Tabari, in his exegesis, stated that both verses were not abrogated. His interpretation matches mine, namely, that 33:50 gave him a final choice and once the Prophet (PBUH) made the choice then, he could not marry again ever. At-Tabari preceded Al-Baghdaadi. Dr. Zayd also showed proof that scholars who came after Al-Baghdaadi, such as Ibn Al`Arabi, also rejected his consensus claim and narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Ibn Abbaas what clearly destroys Al-Baghdaadi's theory. Ibn Al`Arabi aslo stated, in his book أحكام القرآن, page 1559, that the hadeeth attributed to `Aa'isha, in which she says that the Prophet (PBUH) had full license to marry before he died, that that hadeeth was very weak.

Another scholar who came after Al-Baghdaadi and knocked down his claim of consensus about this case, was Ibn Al-Jawzi. He quoted narrations form Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn Seereen, Abu-Umaama, Ibn Sahl, Abu-Bakr Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Al-Haarith and As-Suddi.

_________________
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: 29 Dec 2010, 21:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Nada, in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, page 153, says exactly what I've been thinking about this claim! He says that most likely the folks who made this claim, made it out of emotion: they love the Prophet (PBUH) and don't see how such a wonderful man be denied the right to marry whomever woman he wants to marry.

Nada says that if we follow this "logic" then the Prophet (PBUH) should not have been forbidden anything at all, as an honor to him! He does not need that, nor want it, Nada concludes.

Nada also cites that scholars have claimed that verse 33:50 was revealed after verse 33:52, yet none could produce evidence to back up that claim. Al-Qurtubi ridicules that claim as well as the claim that the narration by `Aa'isha is what abrogated 33:52. Ibn Al`Arabi found that narration to be very weak.

_________________
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 Oct 2013, 20:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
They (the wives of the Prophet, PBUH) 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!

That was the explanation of Al-Hasan and Ibn Seereen, according to Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 163. He also mentioned Abu-Umaama's explanation: that it was only fair that when God forbade the wives of the Prophet (PBUH), may God have been pleased with them, from marrying again after the Prophet"s death, God forbade him from marrying other women.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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!

And Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 67, simply says that it is possible, without offering any evidence, and supports this claim.

If it is possible, and no proof is necessary, then we can say that about every pair of abrogating-abrogated verses! We can therefore reverse every abrogation claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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 Mar 2024, 19:12

All times are UTC

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