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  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 07:21 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Here are the three verses for reference:






For verses 2:219 and 5:90, the "case" for abrogation is that

"O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, stone alters (a sacrificial ritual to idols), and divining arrows (a wagering ritual) are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." (5:90),

where 'intoxicants' is a translation of khamr which is mainly alcoholic beverages (the linguistic derivation of the word khamr comes from 'messing with the mind'), abrogates

"They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefits for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit..." (part of 2:219),

the idea being that verse 5:90 is describing intoxicants and gambling as pure evil while verse 2:219 is describing them as a mixed bag.

I see absolutely no case for abrogation here. Verse 2:219 is a statement of fact, not a command. Facts cannot be abrogated. The only reason I can see people invoking abrogation here is that they perceive that there is a contradiction between the two statements and they want to resolve it.

There is no contradiction at all. Intoxicants and gambling are indeed a mixed bag. They are great sins in spite of having some benefits. Their sin happens to outweigh their benefit. This type of mixed bag is exactly what Satan flourishes in :). He will try to sell us intoxicants and gambling by pushing their benefits, never mind that their great sin outweighs those benefits. It is only befitting that God is warning us in verse 5:90 that intoxicants and gambling are "defilement from the work of Satan." This is a logical complement, not an abrogation.

The case that verse 4:43 was abrogated by verse 5:90 is more interesting. Here is a translation of the verses:

"O you who have believed, do not approach the prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying..." (part of 4:43)

"O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, stone alters (a sacrificial ritual to idols), and divining arrows (a wagering ritual) are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful." (5:90)

Unlike 2:219 which I argued was not abrogated, verse 4:43 does have a command related to drinking and therefore could in principle be abrogated. Verse 2:219 was only a statement of fact. The basis for the abrogation case of 4:43 is that its command not to approach the prayer while drunk was eliminated by the stronger command in 5:90 not to drink in the first place.

There is no question that drinking was prohibited altogether in 5:90. There is no question that even if you avoid praying while drunk, the drinking itself is not allowed. However, this is not the point. The point is whether there is a contradiction between the two commands "don't pray while drunk" and "don't drink at all" that can only be resolved by eliminating the command "don't pray while drunk" through abrogating 4:43. The answer is that there is no such contradiction. There may be redundancy, but not contradiction. These two commands can be both valid.

It is not just a philosophical point that if you don't drink, then not praying while drunk is a moot point so there is no need to abrogate it. I actually believe that the "don't pray while drunk" command is still applicable until this very day. Here are my reasons. There are Moslems today who drink, right? They may not be good Moslems, but they exist. If someone is drunk at this very moment, can they pray? I know the answer to this question. They can't, because of the ruling in 4:43. If you believe 4:43 is abrogated, how would you answer this specific question?

This is not meant to encourage people to drink. This is not meant to give excuses to those who drink. This is only meant to answer the question: Was verse 4:43 abrogated?

One final point. Drinking is not allowed, and skipping prayers is not allowed. If someone violates the first rule and drinks, this does not give them license to violate the second rule and skip prayers. IMHO, this fact gives the ruling in 4:43 the same weaning benefit that it had at the time the verse was revealed. Those who don't have the willpower to immediately stop drinking altogether, may have enough willpower to at least schedule their drinking with respect to the prayer times. Hopefully, this will get them closer to mustering enough resolve to quit drinking altogether.

That's just my humble opinion. I expect that people may disagree with my reasoning here. If you feel there is a flaw in my argument that verse 4:43 is not abrogated, please point it out.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 (or 5:91) abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 15:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Totally agree. Also, consider this: If a man is caught drunk and he is flogged as penalty. After which, it is time for prayer but he is still drunk, can he join the prayer? 4:43 says he cannot. The fact that we have to follow 4:43 in this case means it has not been abrogated.

To complete the discussion, I include below what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about this case in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan",

ذكر الآية الخامسة عشرة: قوله تعالى "لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى". قال المفسرون هذه الآية اقتضت إباحة السكر في غير أوقات الصلاة، ثم نسخ ذلك بقوله تعالى "فاجتنبوه". أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا إبراهيم ين عمر البرمكي قال أبنا محمد إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا محمد بن قهزاد قال حدثني علي بن الحسين بن واقد قال حدثني أبي عن زيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى" قال نسختها "إنما الخمر والميسر والأنصاب والأزلام رجس من عمل الشيطان فاجتنبوه". قال أبو بكر وأبنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال بنا عبد الله بن صالح قال بنا معاوية بن صالح عن علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى" قال كانوا لا يشربونها عند الصلاة فإذا صلوا العشاء شربوها، فلا يصبحون حتى يذهب عنهم السكر، فإذا صلوا الغداة شربوها، فأنزل الله عز وجل "إنما الخمر والميسر والأنصاب والأزلام" الآية فحرم الله الخمر. قال أبو بكر وبنا محمد بن سعد قال حدثني أبي عن الحسين بن الحسن بن عطية عن أبيه عن عطية عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى" قال نسختها الآية التي في المائدة "فاجتنبوه". قال أبو بكر وبنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال بنا عبد الله بن عثمان قال أبنا عيسى ابن عبيد قال بنا عبيد الله مولى عمر بن مسلم أن الضحاك بن مزاحم أخبره في قوله "لا تقربوا الصلاة وأنتم سكارى" قال نسختها "إنما الخمر والميسر والأنصاب" الآية


He says that exegetes have concluded from 4:43 that drinking was allowed and we know it no longer is, hence the assertion of abrogation by many scholars. The problem with this logic is that 4:33 does not say that drinking was allowed. It only says that drinking and praying is not allowed, and that is still the case.

Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 51, says that some have said that the abrogating verse is the next one

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 18:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Mujaahid and Qataada,
Ad-Dhahhaak (implied),
Ikrima (who said the abrogating is 5:6),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Aş-Şa`di),
An-Nahhaas, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Ibn Salaama (they said 4:43 abrogated 2:219)
Makki,
Al-Qurtubi and Ibn `Atiyya (implied),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (according to Dr. Faaris, re 2:219),
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris (implied by his approval of Shu`la's opinion re 2:219),
Dr. M. M. Farghali.

Against:
Al-Hasan and `Ataa',
Ad-Dhahhaak, Zayd ibn Aslam,
Al-Qaraafi (according to Dr. Ali Jum`a),
Hibatullah ibn Salaama (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
As-Suyooti,
Az-Zurqaani,
Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi, As-Saawi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Abu-Bakr ibn Al`Arabi and Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood (quoted by Haani Taahir),
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi (in his exegesis محاسن التأويل, according to Haani Taahir),
Muhammad Al-Ghazaali,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs (Egypt): They reject the claim against 2:219 but are silent about the claim against 4:43,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Haani Taahir.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 10:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Dr. Mostafa Zaid supports the abrogation case of 4:43 only (I assume he excluded 2:219 as a statement of fact). He provides the weakest argument among the 5 abrogation cases he supported. In all of half a page (page 324 in volume 2 of his book), he argues that 4:43 by implication allows drinking outside the prayer times, and therefore 5:90 which prohibits drinking unconditionally abrogates it. Never mind that there is no statement that says or implies that something has been abrogated, never mind that there is no conflict between the two rulings. Basically, he threw all rules out in this one. I really don't understand why he did that. This was the last topic in the book so maybe he was just tired.

BTW, if we allow verses to be abrogated when "they allow something by implication" and another verse prohibits it, then a lot of verses can be abrogated by 5:90 :astaghfir:. Any verse that came before 5:90 and didn't explicitly prohibit drinking would, by implication, allow drinking since the default in religion is allowing. Therefore 5:90 would abrogate all of them والعياذ بالله.

The abrogation claims of this particular thread are the most disturbing for me because they negate basic analytic thinking.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2010, 06:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Dr. Mostafa Zaid supports the abrogation case of 4:43 only (I assume he excluded 2:219 as a statement of fact). He provides the weakest argument among the 5 abrogation cases he supported.

Burton quotes Zaid on page 185 of his book as having accepted only 4 cases of abrogated verses in the text of the Quran, and lists these 4 cases. They are the other 4 cases in the copy of Zaid's book that I have, and they do not include 4:43. I have no explanation for this discrepancy, but I did mention before that the treatment of 4:43 (the last item in Zaid's book, at least in the copy that I have) is uncharacteristically short and weak.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 04:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Basically, he threw all rules out in this one. I really don't understand why he did that. This was the last topic in the book so maybe he was just tired.

On page 337-338 of volume 2, the last 2 pages of his book, Zaid apologizes for his failures at times because of his illness, and he said that he tried his best in spite of his poor health. This may explain that this abrogation claim, the very last in his book, was not as thoroughly handled as the other four.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 05:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On page 337-338 of volume 2, the last 2 pages of his book, Zaid apologizes for his failures at times because of his illness, and he said that he tried his best in spite of his poor health. This may explain that this abrogation claim, the very last in his book, was not as thoroughly handled as the other four.

May God bless his soul. He was wrong in his conclusion, IMHO, but he did a wonderful job in studying the subject in a scholarly way and succeeded in refuting the bulk of the claims.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 04 May 2010, 05:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
In his book, لانسخ في القرآن, pages 72-75, Dr. As-Saqqa discusses these three verses and adds to them

He says that none of the four verses are abrogated, nor abrogating. He says that 16:67 allows drinking drinks made by soaking fruit in water but that have not yet fermented, which is called in Arabic النبيذ. He said that the prophet (PBUH) used to drink drinks where fruits were left soaking in water for the whole day, and would give it to his servant at day 2 and never let anybody drink it after day 2. Dr. As-Saqqa says that's what سكرا (sweet) means in 16:67.

I recall Shaykh Ash-Sha`raawi, may God bless his soul, explaining 16:67 differently. He said that the verse is very accurate, a sign for the divine origin of the Quran, in that God left the word سكرا, which he interpreted as intoxicant, left it without an adjective, while He attached the adjective حسنا (good) to رزقا (provision). I find Ash-Sha`raawi's interpretation compelling and agree with him that 16:67 also refers to intoxicants. The verse does not really prohibit alcoholic beverages, just hints that they are not "good."

The notion that 16:67, 2:219, 4:43 and 5:90 were gradual steps toward the prohibition of alcohol, is rejected by As-Saqqa. He maintains that 2:219, 4:43 also prohibited alcohol but not as clearly as 5:90 did. His evidence that 2:219 prohibited alcohol is quite convincing. He said that 2:219 refers to alcoholic beverages having إثم كبير (big sin) and that God prohibited sin in

The only problem I have with this valid interpretation is that Chapter 4, which acknowledged that Muslims did drink alcohol and God did not chastise them for it, was revealed after Chapter 2. I think that 2:217 was simply a stronger hint for those who would notice, such as Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him. The reason for this gradual approach that God followed is to train Muslims to abandon a strong, appealing habit. So, even if we agree with As-Saqqa's conclusion about 2:217, the fact remains that Muslims did not stop drinking after they heard it, the Prophet (PBUH) did not punish them and God did not chastise them. Thus, what God wanted, and God always gets what He wants, must have been to get the more sensitive Muslims to quit drinking on their own and without a direct command from Him. As Muslims started to suspect that alcoholic beverages are an evil, 4:43 and then 5:90 sealed the prohibition.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 07:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi refutes this case in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 146-150, using the gradual teaching argument. He echoes Ash-Sha`raawi on his interpretation of 16:67. He finishes his arguments with this paragraph (I translate):
Dr. Az-Zalmi wrote:
The claim of abrogation is built on not understanding what was provided in these verses. How hard it is to understand the facts, and how easy it is to claim abrogation, imitating others, without using the sound mind and recognizing the status of the Quran!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 30 May 2010, 05:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On pages 355-356 of his book, Ihab argues against the abrogation claim 5:90/4:43 using the exact same argument and same presentation that I made in the OP of this thread. This means that he cannot be all that bad :D.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 17 Nov 2018, 18:57

All times are UTC

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