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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2017, 20:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Farghali, in his book النسخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 11-14, starts out his defense of the abrogation doctrine by quoting 2:219 and says that "there is no indication in it for prohibition, only a preparation for prohibition when it is issued." While that is true, there is no indication in it for allowance either! It is simply a statement of fact: there are in alcoholic beverages benefits for people, but their harm is bigger.

This becomes important when he later claims its abrogation by 5:90. He was smart enough to zero in on what part of 2:219 was abrogated. He said it was the part that says there are benefits in them for people. He tried to explain that by quoting scholars interpretations of what those benefits were,

  • Ibn Habeeb said the benefit was that it makes a depressed person feel better.
  • Makki said it was the pleasure that one experiences from drinking.
  • He, Farghali, opines that the benefit is in money earned making and trading it.

I find Farghali's opinion to be smart. The rest of scholars seem to have focused on drinking even though the verse does not.

But, if we accept any of those interpretations, how is any of them abrogated, i.e., canceled? 5:90 does not say that there are no longer any benefit to alcoholic beverages! They still make a depressed person feel better. Most drinkers will tell you it gives them pleasure. Makers and traders of alcoholic beverages still make money! All of these are facts, not rulings. They cannot be abrogated.

Therefore, the only way to prove abrogation of 2:219 is to prove that it has permitted drinking and Farghali didn't try.

Next, he quotes 4:43 as evidence that intoxication was partially allowed but forbidden at prayer times. To prove that point he quotes the man he admires the most, Shaafi`i, who actually disproves his point! Shaafi`i said, in his book الرسالة, pages 120-121,

فدل القرآن والله أعلم على أن لا صلاة لسكران حتى يعلم ما يقول إذ بدأ بنهيه عن الصلاة وذكر معه الجنب فلم يختلف أهل العلم على ألا صلاة لجنب حتى يتطهر

Translation: Thus, the Quran showed, and God knows more, that there is no prayer for a drunkard until he can distinguish what he says. He mentioned with that the one soiled from ejaculation and people of scholarship have not differed on the ruling that there is no prayer for one soiled from ejaculation until he bathes.

I'm surprised that smart Farghali didn't get that even after quoting Shaafi`i. It's the prayer that's forbidden in those circumstances. Verse 4:43 has no ruling on drinking alcohol.

When he gets to 5:90, he quotes Ibn Jareer (At-Tabari) saying that because people stopped drinking during prayer times after 4:43 was revealed and stopped drinking altogether after 5:90 was revealed, that this proves that 2:219 was clearly abrogated!

Ironically, Farghali wrote, on pages 31, 35, about the issue of البراءة الأصلية (default allowance), defined as the assumption of allowance in the absence of disallowing legislation. He emphasized that a ruling that disallows what was allowed before by default is not called an abrogation but new legislation. He's right, of course, but why didn't he follow his own words when he claimed abrogation of 2:219?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 11 Sep 2018, 17:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Next, he quotes 4:43 as evidence that intoxication was partially allowed but forbidden at prayer times. To prove that point he quotes the man he admires the most, Shaafi`i, who actually disproves his point! Shaafi`i said, in his book الرسالة, pages 120-121,

فدل القرآن والله أعلم على أن لا صلاة لسكران حتى يعلم ما يقول إذ بدأ بنهيه عن الصلاة وذكر معه الجنب فلم يختلف أهل العلم على ألا صلاة لجنب حتى يتطهر

Translation: Thus, the Quran showed, and God knows more, that there is no prayer for a drunkard until he can distinguish what he says. He mentioned with that the one soiled from ejaculation and people of scholarship have not differed on the ruling that there is no prayer for one soiled from ejaculation until he bathes.

I'm surprised that smart Farghali didn't get that even after quoting Shaafi`i. It's the prayer that's forbidden in those circumstances. Verse 4:43 has no ruling on drinking alcohol.

What Imam Shaafi`i wrote above is the crux of refuting the abrogation claim. The parallel God draws between intoxication and ejaculate fluid soiling focuses the prohibition in the verse on praying under those conditions. No word on whether alcohol drinking is permitted or prohibited. The verse specifies two conditions that disallow praying and says clearly why and how these conditions are terminated and thus allowing praying again. The first condition is intoxication. The reason it disallows praying is that the praying must "know what they are saying", i.e., be sober. Thus, when they get sober, the condition terminates and they can pray. No word about what to do about the drinking. The second condition is soiling. The reason it disallows praying is obvious: cleanliness is mandatory before praying. The condition can only end with bathing. After that a person can pray again. No word about whether getting soiled is allowed or prohibited!

It is also important to notice that God specifies intoxication, and not the drinking of alcohol, as the cause for disallowing praying. A corollary of that is if someone drinks alcohol but doesn't become intoxicated, such that he knows what he's saying, may pray under the provision of this verse! Likewise, if a person has sex but does not ejaculate, he may pray under the provision of this verse! On the flip side, a person who gets drunk by a means other than drinking alcohol may not pray until he gets sober. And a person who soils himself by a means other than sex, such as a wet dream, may not pray until he bathes.

God chooses His words carefully. Those who read them should likewise exercise care in interpreting them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


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


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 23 Sep 2018, 05:07

All times are UTC

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