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  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 31 May 2010, 05:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

I assume you did not collaborate with him on his book? :)

Genius minds meet vicariously.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 22:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On pages 76-80 of his book, Al-Ghali discusses this abrogation claim under the heading 2:219. He makes a couple of interesting points

  • The statement that something is forbidden during a particular circumstance does not imply it is allowed otherwise. He gives a number of examples the most salient of which is the part about not forcing girls in



  • He gives an excellent example of when 4:43 would be applicable in this day and age: A patient coming out of a surgery and still under the influence of anesthetics should not pray until they are fully aware even if they miss the prayer time.

BTW, there is a subtlety that is often missed (by even some scholars he quoted) in thinking that 4:43 forbids drinking at prayer times. It does not. It forbids praying when drunk, not drinking per se.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2010, 20:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On pages 76-80 of his book, Al-Ghali discusses this abrogation claim under the heading 2:219. He makes a couple of interesting points

He also makes two other good points, one of them supports abrogation:

  1. Verse 2:219 does not say that alcohol is evil, it says that in it is much evil. Thus, Ibn `Atiyya and Al-Qurtubi said that what was prohibited by this verse is not alcohol but what drinking it leads to. The reason this point is relevant is whether one can conclude that 2:219 was a prohibition. If it wasn't then the pro-abrogation folk have a point.

  2. Al-Ghaali points out that there was never a verse that said that drinking alcohol is allowed. Verse 2:219 stated a fact, not a ruling. The reason this point is relevant is that prohibiting something that was allowed by default (البراءة الأصلية) is not abrogation but new legislation. Abrogation is to reverse a previous ruling.

My humble comment on the first point is that 2:219 is a statement of fact; there is no ruling in it, except by implication. That implication is exactly how Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, understood it. In fact, he was very uneasy about alcohol ever since 16:67 was revealed. He and Mu`aazh and other Sahaaba went to the Prophet (PBUH) and said, "O Messenger of God, rule for us about alcohol, for it takes away the mind and wastes money." Then 2:219 was revealed.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 22:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
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. 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.

I just now read his argument and it is indeed what you wrote: that 4:43 does not explicitly prohibit drinking. I say: so? In order for abrogation to occur, some text must explicitly say do this or don't do this, then a subsequent text comes and says: no, it's something different now! God said nothing explicitly about alcohol until 5:90, therefore 5:90 was new legislation, not an abrogation of an old legislation. Big difference! There was no old legislation! No wonder Ihab Abduh was very disappointed in Dr. Zayd for this particular claim he agreed with.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2010, 05:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 86-87, rejects this case on the basis of gradual legislation. He quotes Al-Qaraafi from his book نفائس الأصول, Chapter 6, page 2461, saying that disallowing what was tolerated is not abrogation. Indeed, it's new legislation. No scholar has ever said, and there is no evidence that drinking alcohol was ever permitted by God; it was simply not mentioned for a while (مسكوت عنه).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 17:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
I noticed this the other day and thought I better write down the thought. Verse 4:43,

Image
{4:43} O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated in order that you know what you are saying, or soiled [from ejaculation], except those passing through, until you have washed your whole body. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the lavatory or you have intercourse with women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands with it. Indeed, God is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.

uses the same particle حتى for both situations it speaks of that prohibit prayer: drunkenness and uncleanliness. The particle has many meanings, but prominent among them are "in order that" and "until."

It is obvious that in the case of uncleanliness, the particle means "until", i.e., one cannot approach prayer while unclean and must take a shower first. Now, does the first use of the particle with drunkenness also mean "until?" If it does, the pro-abrogation folk may have a point. It would then mean that praying while drunk is allowed if the person is alert enough to know what he's reading.

But, that's a false premise because it's a contradiction in terms. Drunkenness necessarily means lack of alertness; one cannot be drunk and know what he's saying at the same time. In other words, you know someone is not drunk when he knows what he's saying. Thus, IMHO, that point is bunk. The particle here may mean "until" in the sense that knowing what one is saying is the end of drunkenness. It can also mean "in order that."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2010, 02:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 282-283, says that no one has disagreed that permission to be drunk is inferred from 4:43 and it has been abrogated by 5:90.

In the next paragraph, he says that Ad-Dhahhaak and Zayd ibn Aslam said that the drunkenness is out of sleep, not alcohol and that's why they opined that 4:43 was not abrogated.

He also says that Ikrima opined that the abrogating is

Meaning to delay the prayer until one is sober.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2010, 05:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 282-283, says that no one has disagreed that permission to be drunk is inferred from 4:43

Really? So it must be that no one disagrees that permission to kill one's children in case of poverty is inferred from

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2010, 22:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa refutes this case in his bookالنسخ في القرآن الكريم- مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages57-58, after saying it has merit, by saying,
ثم إن المفهوم المخالف الذي بني عليه حكم الإباحة لا يصح، لأن النهي عن الخمر في أوقات الصلاة لا يعني الإباحة في بقية الأوقات

Translation: The conclusion that 4:43 allowed drunkenness cannot logically be made. Forbidding drinking at prayer time does not necessarily mean allowing it at other times.

Indeed, if I'm teaching a class and I tell students that they cannot come to the class barefooted, that does not necessary mean that they can be barefooted outside the class.

But more importantly, and it is the point Pragmatic and I have made: A Muslim may be drunk and deserving punishment, but he is still required to pray; if he is drunk, he cannot. Thus, 4:43 remains valid.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2010, 13:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He says that exegetists 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.

To elaborate further, consider

which excuses the sick and the travelers from having to fast. Does this verse allow traveling or does it disallow it? Neither! It has no ruling on traveling; it rules on fasting while traveling. If it wanted to rule on traveling, it would've said something like, "Don't travel while fasting." Instead, it says, "Don't fast while traveling."

The point is that 4:43 describes a condition a person is in, it does not rule on what caused the condition.

Notice also that 4:43 mentions another condition: being soiled from ejaculation. Again, it has no ruling on that, it only says that a person must not approach prayer in that condition unless he is just passing by and won't participate in the prayer.

The only ruling and command in 4:43 is "Do not approach prayer..." To say that 4:43 is abrogated is to say that it is now OK to approach a prayer drunk and soiled! No scholar has ever said that. The implicit assumption the pro-abrogation scholars made, that the verse implies that drinking was allowed, is therefore erroneous. The only implicit assumption that can logically be taken from 4:43 is that it may be OK to do things other than prayer while drunk or soiled.

_________________
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  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 17 Nov 2018, 19:16

All times are UTC

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