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: 30 May 2010, 05:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
On pages 347-354 of his book, Ihab refutes this abrogation claim based on the interpretation that 4:15-16 are talking about homosexuality. There are two main highlights.

  • He argues that the word الفاحشة is used in the Quran to denote homosexuality, and he gives as evidence


    He goes on to argue that different sexual offenses are referred to by different conjugations of that word, but he is less convincing in that.

  • He argues the inevitability that 4:16 is talking about homosexuality, since "اللذان" in 4:16 can either refer to two men or a man and a woman, but then it cannot include a woman since the punishment in 4:16 is in conflict with that in 4:15 which unambiguously talks about women, so 4:16 has to be talking about two men. This is the exact same argument I gave earlier in this thread.

Ihab then goes on another Quran-only tangent that has little bearing on the current case.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 31 May 2010, 20:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 200-207, covers this claim with much detail. His refutation of it is identical to Al-Asfahaani's argument, but he does not mention him! He also dismisses one of the arguments of those who advocate abrogation in this case, namely, that the abrogating is the stoning ruling, by saying that the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran.

He does elaborate on why he sees 4:15 specific to women and cannot possibly include men, namely, the use of the relative pronoun اللاتي, which is never used, explicitly or otherwise to refer to or include men. Thus, 4:15 is about female homosexuality only.

He answers your question, Pragmatic, in this previous post, that the "way out" mentioned in 4:15, is marriage. He quotes the exegesis of Ar-Raazi and Az-Zamakhshari on that.

Likewise, Az-Zalmi says, is the indication of the relative pronoun اللذان which can only be used for two men. Thus, 4:16 is about male homosexuality only. I don't think that one is accurate.

Az-Zalmi then explains that the issue of whether the Sunna has abrogated 24:2 is indeterminate, since it is not known when the stoning incidents occurred relative to the revelation of 24:2.

Then, Az-Zalmi brings out an excellent point. He says that if 24:2 did abrogate 4:15-16, then the penalty for homosexuality should also have been a hundred floggings, but no scholars said so, except one report from Ash-Shafi`i and some Maalikis, and no judges have so ruled! Instead, the rulings have been that homosexuals are disciplined (التعزير).

Finally, Az-Zalmi asserts the same argument of Al-Asfahaani regarding the way out, as you quoted in this post above, Pragmatic, namely,
Pragmatic wrote:
  • Explaining the "way" in "God ordains for them [another] way" as stoning or lashing would not be for them but against them, and the expression in 2:286 supports that linguistically.


As for your quote, Pragmatic, from Ihab's book,
Pragmatic wrote:
  • He (Ihab) argues that the word الفاحشة is used in the Quran to denote homosexuality, and he gives as evidence 7:80-81

That is the same argument I used in this post above, so Ihab can't be all bad! :D

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 31 May 2010, 21:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He does elaborate on why he sees 4:15 specific to women and cannot possibly include men, namely, the use of the relative pronoun اللاتي, which is never used, explicitly or otherwise to refer to or include men. Thus, 4:15 is about female homosexuality only.

Just to be accurate, اللاتي does imply that the subjects are all female, but it does not necessarily imply that the offense is homosexual, as it is conceivable that this is the punishment for the female part of a heterosexual act. What excludes this possibility is, very specifically,

  • The offense referred to in 4:16 is the same as the offense referred to in 4:15, per the wording of the two verses.

  • The penalty in 4:16 is incompatible with the penalty in 4:15.

Therefore, no person can be subject to both verses simultaneously. Now,

  • Women are subject to 4:15, per the use of اللاتي in that verse.

Therefore, women cannot be subject to 4:16. This excludes one of the two possibilities for 4:16 which are

  • 4:16 is talking about either two men or one man and one woman, per the use of اللذان in the verse.

leaving only the possibility that 4:16 is talking about two men. If it is talking about two men, the offense must be homosexual in 4:16. If the offense is homosexual in 4:16, it must also be homosexual in 4:15, since the offense is the same per the first bullet above.

Linguistic wrote:
He answers your question, Pragmatic, in this previous post, that the "way out" mentioned in 4:15, is marriage. He quotes the exegesis of Ar-raazi and Az-Zamakhshari on that.

I wish I could convince myself of that, since it has a 'happy ending' feel to it. However, the wording in 4:15 is من نسائكم which makes it more likely that the verse is talking about married women.

Linguistic wrote:
That is the same argument I used in this post above, so Ihab can't be all bad! :D

LOL! We are having fun here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2010, 01:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Just to be accurate, اللاتي does imply that the subjects are all female, but it does not necessarily imply that the offense is homosexuality, as it is conceivable that this is the punishment for the female part of a heterosexual act. What excludes this possibility is, very specifically, that the next verse patently addresses homosexuality because اللذان is used and the same offense is referred to in 4:15 and 4:16, and the penalty in 4:15 is incompatible with the penalty in 4:16. This leaves the only possibility being that اللذان cannot include a woman, hence has to be two men, hence the offense has to be homosexuality, hence the offense in 4:15 also has to be homosexuality.

Excellent articulation of the logic and its inevitable conclusion.

Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
He answers your question, Pragmatic, in this previous post, that the "way out" mentioned in 4:15, is marriage. He quotes the exegesis of Ar-raazi and Az-Zamakhshari on that.

I wish I could convince myself of that, since it has a 'happy ending' feel to it. However, the wording in 4:15 is من نسائكم which makes it more likely that the verse is talking about married women.

It literally means "your women", thus it refers to Muslim women in general, but I agree with you; it has been used more often to refer to wives. I'd say that the only text specifying the way out was the hadeeth specifying a hundred floggings and a year of house arrest. Thus, it is conceivable that the life sentence was reduced to a year and 100 floggings after which she can leave the house. I don't know if that was the way judges have ruled. In fact, I don't know if such a case was ever brought up on charges, because of the requirement of four witnesses.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2010, 02:00 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I don't know if such a case was ever brought up on charges, because of the requirement of four witnesses.

Just as an aside, it always struck me that the witness requirement makes this de facto a punishment for p-o-r-n-o-graphy (I had to put the hyphens since this seems to be a sensored word).

BTW, I had edited the articulation you quoted before I read your reply (thank you). I would leave the wording you quoted in place to give the reader the option of two different ways of putting it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2010, 03:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
  • The offense referred to in 4:16 is the same as the offense referred to in 4:15, per the wording of the two verses.
  • The penalty in 4:16 is incompatible with the penalty in 4:15.

Therefore, no person can be subject to both verses simultaneously.

Believe it or not, some scholars have said that the penalty for women is both: a beating and a lifetime house arrest, while the penalty for men is a beating only. Looks like those scholars were adamant against the obvious meaning of the two verses. I honestly don't know why.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2010, 04:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Believe it or not, some scholars have said that the penalty for women is both: a beating and a lifetime house arrest, while the penalty for men is a beating only. Looks like those scholars were adamant against the obvious meaning of the two verses. I honestly don't know why.

How do the esteemed scholars reconcile "if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone" with a lifetime house arrest?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2010, 05:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Ghali discusses this abrogation claim in great detail on pages 99-107 of his book. All the arguments mentioned in this thread are analyzed, and he sides with the interpretation that 4:15-16 are about homosexuality. He also cites the fact that there is no authentic punishment for homosexuality otherwise in the Sunna, so that gives credence to the conclusion that 4:15-16 are prescribing such punishment.

On a side note, if you read the varied interpretations, some of them quite labored, even convoluted, you will find 4:15-16 to be prime examples of mutashabeh verses. Al-Arabi describes the verses saying "This is a difficult puzzle (معضلة) in verses that I don't find anyone who knows."

I wanted to mention for the record something that I noticed. 4:15 is very explicit and elaborate about the 4 witness requirement, while 4:16 doesn't mention it at all. Not sure what to make of that.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 18:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
but 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.

Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 99-107, propounds the many opinions about that,
  • Some said it's a non-issue because the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran.
  • Some said that 24:2 is the way out, implying I suppose that 24:2 is the final abrogating text. Al-Asfahaani refutes this argument saying that flogging is harsher, so it cannot be thought of as a way out for the woman, rather a way against her.
  • Ikrima said that 4:16 abrogated 4:15 and both were abrogated by the Sunna!
  • Some said that house arrest was for married women, and the discipline for unmarried women. At-Tabari liked that but An-Nahhaas did not. He said that 4:16 cannot be talking about women.
  • Some said that 4:15 was abrogated by the hadeeth and 4:16 was abrogated by 24:2.
  • Some said that house arrest was abrogated by the so-called stoning verse. Ibn Al`Arabi rebuked that opinion by saying that the Quran is what reached us by ubiquitous narrations only.
  • Ibn Al`Arabi rejects the abrogation claim on the basis of contingency. He said that whatever is said to have abrogated 4:15 has actually specified the way out.
  • Some said that all evidence is to be combined: house arrest, discipline and flogging/stoning! One of those was Ash-Shawkaani. He included flogging only, not stoning.
  • Some said that 4:15 includes married men! Al-Ghaali ridicules this opinion since 4:15 cannot possibly be talking about men.
  • Mujaahid, Ibn Katheer and As-Suyooti in his exegesis, all agreed that 4:16 is talking about male homosexuality.
  • Al-Asfahaani argued that if 4:15 is about fornication then so is 4:16 and that would be a redundancy not befitting God.
  • Al-Ghaali knocks out all of the abrogation opinions because, as he said, they all make the wrong assumption: that 4:15-16 talk about fornication or adultery. He agrees with Al-Asfahaani that both verses talk about homosexuality.
  • Muhammad Abduh and Rasheed Ridha both agreed with Al-Asfahaani that the way out is marriage. Ridha said that the wisdom of house arrest is that lesbians should not mix with straight women.

I'd add to the list that the hadeeth only specifies the way out for two out of four possible combinations. Perhaps that's what Ibn Al`Arabi meant when he said that he finds a dilemma here that he knows of no one who recognized it. The hadeeth specifies the way out for a single woman fornicating with a single man and for a married woman fornicating with a married man. What about a single woman fornicating with a married man or a married woman fornicating with a single man? Do they have a way out or not? If they do, what is it and what's the proof there is? If there is no way out, how come?

It boggles the mind that so many esteemed scholars left the most obvious explanation, supported by fundamental linguistics, and veered into countless speculations each contradicting the other. They must have been thrown off by the hadeeths of "the way out", and stoning. That should have propelled them to investigate the hadeeths, not jump to claim abrogation of a verse of the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 18:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 99-107, makes a couple of points, not raised by others,

  • The relative pronoun in 4:15 is plural while in 4:16 it's dual. Why? Al-Ghaali suggests that the reason is that lesbianism is not entirely frowned upon, and as a result, women may know about who committed it without necessarily feeling awkward about it. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is considered by all a horrific shame, so only the two men involved know they did; they wouldn't divulge it to others.

  • Verse 4;15 specifies a punishment for women only, 4;16 for men only, while 24:2 specifies punishment for both. Al-Ghaali says that means each crime is different.

  • What if a fornicating woman was punished by house arrest then 24:2 was revealed, does she then get flogged? That never happened and was not addressed by the scholars. Then the claimed way-out was not for her but for other women!

_________________
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 47 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, 10:33

All times are UTC

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