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 Aug 2010, 23:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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.

Bingo! This is a decisive argument since "being soiled from ejaculation," in and of itself, is neither allowed nor disallowed by 4:43 (what makes it allowed or disallowed is what led to it, and that certainly is not covered by 4:43). Therefore, the conclusion that "being drunk," in and of itself, is neither being allowed nor disallowed by 4:43 is patently supported by this other part of the same verse.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2010, 04:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On page 107 of this book, the author makes an interesting point that "سكارى" in 4:43 may not necessarily mean "intoxicated" only. He quotes a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) that if someone gets sleepy while praying, he should quit the prayer and lie down until he is awake. The Prophet mentions similar reasons for the ruling: A sleepy person may not know what they are saying.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2010, 06:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 104-107, refutes this claim with a number of excellent arguments, such as,

  • The assumption some Sahaaba got from 4:43, namely that it is permissible by default to drink when not praying, is unwarranted. It doesn't necessarily follow. Verse 5:90, if it abrogated anything, it abrogated that misunderstanding!

    Yip, that's what naskh is: correction of a misunderstanding.

  • Verse 4:43 does not actually forbid drinking; it forbids praying while drunk. Drinking does not always result in drunkenness.

  • Verse 5:90 did not cancel 4:43; it added to its scope. That's what we have in our validation rule #11. This is not abrogation. Al-Qaasimi wrote in his exegesis محاسن التأويل, volume 5, page 1202, that A ruling that addresses a subset does not necessarily mean the superset is excluded from it.

  • Ibn Al`Arabi wrote in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 102-103, that 5:90 confirmed 4:43. Verse 4:43 explained one of the conditions of eligibility for compliance with religious mandates: sound mind. He extends the scope of 4:43 to anything that affects the mind, such as drowsiness, fainting, sedatives, etc.; a Muslim should not approach prayer while in such condition.

  • Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood concurs with Ibn Al`Arabi and quotes two hadeeths, reported by Al-Bukhaari in which the Prophet (PBUH) says, "If any of you doses off while praying, let him sleep it off until he can tell what he's reciting."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2010, 07:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • Verse 4:43 does not actually forbid drinking; it forbids praying while drunk. Drinking does not always result in drunkenness.

This is a good observation. Strictly speaking, it does not affect the abrogation argument one way or the other, since 4:43 either implies or does not imply that drinking/getting drunk is allowed outside of prayer times. Of course it does not, but the point is that it makes no difference whether it is drinking or getting drunk that would be allowed if it did imply it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2010, 17:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Dr. Mostafa Zaid argues that 4:43 by implication allows drinking outside the prayer times, and therefore 5:90 which prohibits drinking unconditionally abrogates it.

Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 135, gives a simple example to refute that implication. He says, "When I forbid a student from hitting another student in the class, it doesn't mean that he can hit him outside the classroom!"

He discusses this claim in the chapter about guidance and education. He makes the point that proper education cannot be done if the teacher implies to the student that something is OK then turns around later and tells him it's not!

He sees the wisdom of God in the gradual teaching to believers that drinking is not good. In none of them was a declaration that drinking is good. Indeed, 2:219 made it clear that there is more evil in it than benefit. If you are given an apple, and two thirds of it has rotted, would you eat it? Then, 4:43 made it clear that drinking stands in the way of prayer. Those who could hear realized that drinking is bad long before 5:90 was revealed.

That is why I continue to be surprised, like you, Pragmatic, that Dr. Mustafa Zayd approved the claim that 5:90 abrogated 4:43 because 4:43 implied allowance of drinking outside prayer times. Rulings cannot be established by implication; they can only be established by explicit imperatives. There was never an explicit imperative from God allowing drinking.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 20:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 33-35, does an excellent job of narrating the circumstances of revelation of "the five verses that prohibited intoxication", 2:219 being one of them. Then he concludes that 2:219 was abrogated!

Here are the five verses he talked about:

Some realized the verse prohibits alcohol and they stopped, but others did not understand it as such and thought it was an enumeration of bounties from God :) and continued drinking.


Same thing happened. Then Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn `Awf Az-Zuhri invited people and served them wine until they all were drunk. Then it was Maghrib (Sunset prayer) time. They prayed in a congregation and had Abu-Bakr ibn Ja`fara, their best reciter, lead the prayer. He recited Chapter 109, but, because he was drunk, he said "I do not worship" when he should have said "I do worship" and "I worship" when he should have said "I do not worship"!

When the news reached the Prophet (PBUH), he felt terrible. Then God revealed,

So, what did Muslims do? Some realized, finally, that intoxication is forbidden and stopped, but others still did not. They would drink after `Ishaa' (night prayer) and sometimes after Fajr (dawn prayer), but not between Zhuhr (noon prayer) and Maghrib. One of those was Sa`d ibn Abi-Waqqaas, may God have been pleased with him. He invited people, in Medina, to dinner and they got drunk. One of the guests got rowdy and hit Sa`d in the jaw! Sa`d went to the Prophet (PBUH) to complain, and God revealed


The fifth verse, which scholars said was the decisive ruling about intoxication is

Because, they argued, the question "Will you then cease" is a command to cease, which they did.

Ibn Salaama says that some scholars have said that the prohibition actually came a lot earlier, in

Because the Arabs have referred to alcoholic beverages as الإثم, such as in these poems,
تبوأت الإثم حتى ضل عقلي ... كذلك الإثم يلعب بالعقول

تشرب الإثم بالكؤوس جهارا ... وترى المثل بيتا مستعارا

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 13 May 2011, 18:32 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Noticed today (in a very special place :)) that the verse after 5:90 provides evidence that 5:90 did not abrogate 4:43.


Notice that the verse mentions the effect on prayers, which confirms what 4:43 mandates!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 14 May 2011, 05:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Noticed today (in a very special place :)) that the verse after 5:90 provides evidence that 5:90 did not abrogate 4:43.
...
Notice that the verse mentions the effect on prayers, which confirms what 4:43 mandates!

Great observation. If one drinks, one cannot pray and therefore Satan has succeeded in his intention to stop him from praying.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 2:219 and 4:43?
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2013, 19:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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!

It is important to point out that when a matter has not been ruled on by God, thus implicitly allowed, that this allowance does not necessarily imply approval. It can mean tolerance. God may tolerate for a while something that He does not like and intends to change. Why? Because He knows that people need training and/or education to quit it (or comply with it as the case may be). Changing established traditions or habits is not easy. It requires conviction, willpower and time. That is exactly the methodology that God applied for prohibiting usury and intoxication. He also applied that methodology for ending slavery.

_________________
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 2013, 12:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, reports Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris in his presentation book, page 72, agrees with this claim. He cites majority opinion that 2:219 indicates dispraise of intoxication, not prohibition. He then mentions that people whom he did not name argued that it indicates prohibition because it says "In them is much sin". He replies that what is lawful has no sin in it.

So, his point is that 5:90 replaces discouragement with prohibition. But what he neglected was to to notice that 2:219 contains no commands! There is no ruling in 2:219 to abrogate. It is a statement of fact which has always been true, regardless of whether alcoholic beverages are allowed or prohibited.

The only command in 2:219 is for the Prophet (PBUH) to make that statement to the people who asked.

Dr. Faaris, on page 113, supports Shu`la's statement that those who disapprove of this claim are laboring against established evidence and breeching consensus. He tells several stories to prove that Muslims drank and were not forbidden that. He seems to think that this seals the argument for this claim. He left out the fact that not forbidding something does not necessarily mean allowing it; it may mean tolerating it. Every thing that has been prohibited in Islam was preceded by not prohibiting it! That is not abrogation; that's new legislation.

_________________
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 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, 19:02

All times are UTC

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