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  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 65:4 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 19:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Professor Ahmed Ibrahim, rahimahullah, states in his book علم أصول الفقه, that

was abrogated by

He says that the majority have ruled that the waiting period for a pregnant divorced woman is until she delivers, even if that is less than four months and ten days. The story of Abus-Sanaabil confirms the majority ruling. Professor Ibrahim says that Ali, may God have been pleased with him, ruled the longer of the periods.

I don't quite understand. 2:240 speaks of widows, not divorcées. I suppose the extension to divorcées is warranted by the next verse, 2:241? If we concede that 2:240 applies to divorcées too, then I do not see this as an abrogation case, but as a completion of the ruling. The two verses make up the following consistent ruling,

"Divorce is not final until a waiting period expires. For pregnant wives, the waiting period is until her pregnancy ends. For non-pregnant wives, the waiting period is four months and ten days."

The remaining question is where Ali differed with the majority. Both opinions are valid and can be concluded from these two verses, but the decision of which opinion to go with has no bearing on the abrogation claim. As Professor Ibrahim put it, Ali's ruling hedges against possible injustice.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:4 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2010, 20:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
My main points regarding this and other claims involving 2:240 are

1. There is a difference between the period of time in which the woman is entitled to maintenance and the period of time in which she is obligated to abstain. She has an option to cut the former short, but she cannot cut the latter short. The husband has an obligation to the former, but enjoys an option for the latter. I do not understand how and why the two are mixed in discussions.

2. The fact that the abstinence period is shorter for divorcees than widows (3 months instead of 4 months and 10 days) makes sense since the main goal of the abstinence period is to disambiguate paternity in case of pregnancy. In the case of the widow, the husband is not there to contest in the case of conflict, so a longer factor of safety is warranted.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2010, 03:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
For:
Abdullah ibn Mas`ood,
The majority, according to Professor Ahmed Ibrahim and Professor Ali Hasaballah,
Professor Ahmed Ibrahim.

Against:
Ali (implied),
Ibn Abbaas (according to Hasaballah),
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Haani Taahir,
Professor Ali Hasaballah (implied).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:4 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: Yesterday, 00:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Professor Ali Hasaballah, in his book أصول التشريع الإسلامي, page 208, offers a a refutation of this claim based on linguistics! :-) He breaks it down as follows,

  • The scope of verse 2:240 is widows, pregnant or not. The scope of

    is pregnant women, widow or not.
  • Therefore, non-pregnant widows are addressed by 2:240 and not by 65:4, while pregnant non-widows are addressed by 65:4 and not by 2:240.
  • Pregnant widows, however, are addressed by both 2:240 and 65:4, so there are two conflicting rulings about that particular subset. How do we resolve the conflict?
  • Ibn Abbaas opined that such a widow should use the longer of the two grace periods.
  • Ibn Mas`ood opined that such a widow should wait until she gives birth, be that period long or or short.
  • Consensus has been with Ibn Mas`ood. They weighed in a hadeeth, narrated by Subay`a Al-Aslamiyya, who gave birth less than a month after her husband had died. The Prophet (PBUH) said to her: قد حللت فانكحي من شئت (You're okay to marry whomever you wish).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


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 Oct 2017, 20:28

All times are UTC

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