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.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2010, 17:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 126-128, rejects this claim. His argument is that 4:15 specifies what is to be done to an adulteress after she is flogged. He says that isolating her from society is protection for the society. Though he doesn't say it specifically, his logic applies to adulterer men too.

He also opined that 4:16 refers to adulterers too, specifying the nature of the punishment but not the manner. The manner was specified by 24:2.

Finally, he attributes to Mujaahid the opinion that 4:15-16 speak of homosexuals. He accepts that interpretation and praises the implication that a separate punishment is specified for such perversions.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 07:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Jabri's interpretation is highly labored.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 25 Dec 2010, 00:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd approves this claim, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 315-323 (items 1250-1262). His main points are:

  • The way out mentioned in 4:15 is 24:2, which is confirmed by the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH), "Take from me. God has made for them a way out..." mentioned in this post above.

  • Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi sees this explanation of the way out as abrogation, while Ibn Al-Jawzi sees it as elaboration.

  • Dr. Zayd sees it irrelevant! He says that the statement "or God makes for them a way out" applies to any ruling of God. If it does, then it's redundant, isn't it? If I understood him correctly, he is implying that it an assertion from God of His license to abrogate any of his rulings.

  • He takes the position that 24:2 was "silent" about the penalty for married adulterers. That part of the ruling was learned from the Sunna, which Dr. Zayd finds authentic. See the topic "Did the Sunna abrogate 24:2?" for an extensive discussion of that aspect of the claim.

  • He adds one more abrogation claim to the long list! It was initially made by Ash-Shaafi`i and he concurs. The claim is that the practical Sunna of the Prophet (PBUH) abrogates the flogging part of the penalty for married adulterers which the hadeeth has specified as a "way out!" That's because the Prophet (PBUH) stoned people without flogging them first. Similarly, the year exile specified in the hadeeth was also abrogated by the practical Sunna. Dr. Zayd says that scholars have differed on that particular issue, but that it is irrelevant to the discussion because no verse is involved in it.

  • He disagrees with the scholars who treated 4:15 and 4:16 as two separate rulings. He sees both making up one ruling. He says that the hurt mentioned in 4:16 applies to both adulterers, but that the house arrest applies to the woman only! He says that's why women were singled out in 4:15, because the house arrest additional punishment applies to them only!

  • He quotes Ibn Katheer stating that consensus has been that 4:15-16 were abrogated. The only difference between them is by what. As of this writing, we've shown how over 19 scholars, 6 in the past and 13 in the present, have rejected the abrogation claim, so that statement is simply false.

  • He repeats the poor arguments made to refute Al-Asfahaani's arguments. He adds a few, equally poor arguments:

    • Al-Asfahaani tried to prove that homosexuality is adultery by quoting a weak hadeeth. IMHO, there is no need to make that equation. 4:15-16 do not talk about adultery at all. The word الفاحشة means "the debauchery", not adultery, so it's a superset of it, not limited to it. So, using this word in 4:15 could mean fornication, except for the many linguistic parts of speech in the same verse that prove it is about women among themselves only.

    • It makes no sense to define الفاحشة in 4:15 as lesbianism, while using the same word to mean male homosexuality in 4:16. Doesn't he know that lesbianism is homosexual as well?

    • He quotes a hadeeth, narrated by Ikrima from Ibn Abbaas and attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) saying, "If you see someone doing the act of the people of Lot, kill him." Reported by At-Tirmizhi, Ibn Maajah, Abu-Daawood and Ibn Hanbal. I wonder why it was not reported by either Al-Bukhaari or Muslim? Can the capital punishment be legislated on the basis of less than 100% authentic source?

      Dr. Zayd quotes this hadeeth in an attempt to refute that the "two men" referred to in 4:16 means male homosexuality, since the punishment for them is now the capital punishment. He asks, "Does that mean then that the Sunna abrogated 4:16 about homosexuality?"

      It is clear to me that 4:16 indeed talks about male homosexuality only and it specifies the only punishment for it and that the hadeeth quoted is either not authentic or has been abrogated by 4:16.

    • It makes no sense that the punishment for lesbianism is severe (permanent house arrest) while the punishment for male homosexuality is mild (hurting). He says that God has decimated an entire town as punishment for male homosexuality, but has not punished lesbianism! He actually says, on pages 322-323 (item 1261) that "there is no punishment for lesbianism".

      His point about Sodom sounds like a good point. Here is my humble opinion. The punishment for lesbians has a way out as explicitly stated in 4:15, therefore it is not permanent. God punished Sodom for their persistence in homosexuality and abandonment of heterosexuality. He left them unpunished for years, and sent Lot, peace be upon him, to guide them away from their debauchery. It was only after all that, and their refusal to mend their ways, that God decimated them. The case 4:16 talks about is two individuals, not an entire town.

    • Al-Asfahaani had suggested that the way out is marriage. Dr. Zayd refutes that because 24:3 forbids marrying an adulteress. That's a circular argument, because Dr. Zayd did not prove that 4:15 talks about adultery!

    • Al-Asfahaani wondered how can flogging be a way out; it's harsher punishment. Dr. Zayd answers that any escape from confinement is a way out. IMHO, figuring out what is the way out for lesbians is another matter, best left to jurists. I find plausible Al-Asfahaani's suggestion of marriage as a way out for lesbians.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 00:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek), in his book أصول الفقه, page 253, seems to favor the interpretation of 4:15 to be referring to women who frequent houses of ill repute but do not fornicate. On that basis, he rejects the claim of abrogation, since the subject matter is different from 24:2.

Even though he refers to Al-Asfahaani, he does not even discuss his argument and interpretation! The interpretation he favors is far fetched, not to mention unnecessary, since Al-Asfahaani's interpretation, first made by Mujaahid, is so obvious, no other is needed. Al-Khudhari is right about one thing: the subject matters of 4:15 and 24:2 are different!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 08:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek), in his book أصول الفقه, page 253, seems to favor the interpretation of 4:15 to be referring to women who frequent houses of ill repute but do not fornicate.

It is remarkable what length people will go to in order to avoid something obvious that they don't like.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 or the Sunna abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2011, 18:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The dilemma now is how to interpret the Hadeeth that is narrated about the Prophet (PBUH) saying "God ordained for them [another] way" (evidently referring to the expression in 4:15) at the time of revelation of 24:2.

Ibn Salaama actually lists this hadeeth as the only text that has abrogated 4:15! He does that in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 47.

He sees 24:2 abrogating 4:16. He does NOT list 24:2 among abrogated verses though. Presumably, he sees 24:2 applying to unmarried fornicators and the hadeeth applying to married ones. But since the hadeeth adds a penalty of a year exile to unmarried fornicators, he should have claimed the hadeeth abrogating 24:2!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 or the Sunna abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 02 Jul 2013, 19:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
The dilemma now is how to interpret the Hadeeth that is narrated about the Prophet (PBUH) saying "God ordained for them [another] way" (evidently referring to the expression in 4:15) at the time of revelation of 24:2.

Ibn Salaama actually lists this hadeeth as the only text that has abrogated 4:15!

If the hadeeth is authentic, Ibn Salaama has a point IMHO. The hadeeth would then mean that the way out for lesbian sex offenders has been revealed. That does not abrogate 4:15, only completes it. It also confirms that 4:15 talks about lesbian sex, not straight sex.

But that would immediately lead to more unresolved questions, such as:
  • Why is the penalty for lesbian sex so severe while the penalty for male homosexuality seems mild; discipline, per 4:16 and majority opinion? Many would argue that it is not; that another hadeeth specified it as the capital punishment! But that would make it more severe than the penalty for lesbianism, because the other hadeeth does not differentiate between married and unmarried men, while this hadeeth differentiates between married and unmarried women.
  • As I said before, the hadeeth does not address the way out for lesbian sex between a married and an unmarried woman. How come?
  • As many scholars have asked: How can stoning to death be a way out for unmarried lesbian offenders?
  • None of the scholars who claimed that 24:2 abrogated, or was abrogated by 4:15-16 have actually demonstrated nor proven that homosexuality is adultery. Failing to do that means that 24:2, which explicitly address adultery, does not pertain to homosexuality and therefore cannot abrogate, or be abrogated by 4:15-16.

Such maze of opinions and confusion of what the penalty is for what offense cannot possibly be what God intended, nor what the Prophet (PBUH) left us with. God clearly intended three different penalties for the three offenses: female homosexuality (4:15), male homosexuality (4:16) and adultery (24:2). The Prophet (PBUH) left us with "the white passage, whose night is [as clear] as its day, deviating from which are none but the doomed," narrated by Al-`Urbaadh ibn Saariya, reported by Ibn Maajah and rated authentic by Al-Albaani. Thus, anything that confuses such clarity cannot possibly be authentic IMHO. God knows best.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 13:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Jabri starts his refutation of this claim, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟. pages 126-128, by saying that 4:15 does not state a penalty, but a procedure to be followed with adulteresses. That procedure, he says, is to isolate her from society. He says that one of the reasons this is a good idea is that if the news of the adultery becomes public, the adulteress will have no incentive to repent. He quotes Abus-Su`ood ruling that an adulteress, after being lashed, is to be locked up in her family's home to save what remains of her honor. Thus, 24:2 and 4:15 are complimentary.

In other words, he says that by keeping a low profile, the adultery event will fade from memory and gossip about it will eventually stop. And that is a good thing for the community.

Then he presents Mujaahid's interpretation that 4:15 speaks of lesbians. He does not mention that Al-Asfahaani made the same interpretation later. Al-Jabri accepts this interpretation, but not enthusiastically, it seems. Nevertheless, he says it clearly annuls the abrogation claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 21:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Then he presents Mujaahid's interpretation that 4:15 speaks of lesbians. He does not mention that Al-Asfahaani made the same interpretation later. Al-Jabri accepts this interpretation, but not enthusiastically, it seems. Nevertheless, he says it clearly annuls the abrogation claim.

This may have been mentioned before, but the argument that 4:15 is talking about homosexual activity is simple. While the word "الفاحشة" (scandalous act) in 4:15 may be ambiguous, 4:16 pins it down to homosexual activity since it talks about two men and says "يأتيانها" (do it) referring back to "الفاحشة" in 4:15.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2013, 21:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
The way Abu-Abdillah Shu`la phrases his support for this claim is noteworthy. He says in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 123-124, (my translation and emphasis),
"The first verse (4:15) ordained that the judgment against a female adulterer or fornicator is lockup until she dies. The second (4:16) ordained that the judgment against both adulterers is pain, either by striking with shoes or vulgar talk or likewise of pain methods. Thus, it became clear from the two verses that the judgment against female adulterers is pain and prison together and the judgment against male adulterers is pain only.

That was in the beginning of Islam, then God abrogated that with punitives (الحدود); He abrogated, in regard to the female fornicator, with flogging and exile. Not all scholars have ruled for exile. Abu-Haneefa, Hammaad ibn Sulaymaan and Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan rejected the exile. The three Imaams ruled it. Among those who ruled for flogging before stoning are Ali, Al-Hasan, Ibn Raahaweh and Ibn Hanbal - in one report - and Daawood. [But] "The Three" (presumably Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal) ruled against flogging."

It is hard to know where to begin, but I'll try.

  • How can the conclusion be made that 4:15 and 4:16 may be combined, when 4:15 clearly talks about females only and 4:16 clearly talks about males only?

  • Shu`la avoided saying that God, or His Messenger, have ruled lockup and/or pain in the beginning. That was wise of him, since there is no evidence to back up such allegation. Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in the footnotes, reports a narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas, in which he says, "It was the case that when a woman fornicated, she was locked up at home until she died. And when a man fornicated, he was hurt with name calling and hitting him with shoes. Until God revealed 24:2. And if they were married, they were stoned per the Sunna of the Prophet (PBUH) and that is the way out which God has made for her."

    If stoning to death is a way out (!), then how come the man is also stoned when God did not promise him a way out?

    It is also clear that Ibn Abbaas, if the narration is authentic, had no proof that the lockup and pain were ordained by God or His Messenger, or else he would have said so.

  • Shu`la's statement that "God abrogated that with punitives" implies that lockup and pain were not punitive. But how can that be if they are so clearly specified by God in the Quran?

  • Shu`la kept saying "God abrogated...", but also kept pointing out differences between scholars about the abrogating method! How can God abrogate something He stated clearly with something that is vague and requires interpretation that leads to differences of ruling? Where in the Quran, or the authentic Hadeeth can one find any statement that says that God abrogated His lockup and pain rulings? Nowhere.

All of this confusion and contradictory opinions can very easily be settled when one relaizes that 4:15-16 were not talking about adultery or fornication at all. They were about homosexuality. That was the opinion of Mujaahid, a second generation scholar who preceded all the scholars Shu`la referenced. And why didn't Shu`la refer to Mujaahid at all? Wouldn't it have been more scholarly to do that?

_________________
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.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 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, 14:33

All times are UTC

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