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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2010, 00:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 180-183. One particularly interesting point he quoted from Ar-Raazi (from his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 3, page 60) is that the epilogue of 2:185 does not befit the conclusion of abrogation. The abrogation claim is that fasting is now a must on those who can barely do it after initially allowing them to ransom instead. If that's the case, then how come God ends 2:185 with the words "God wants for you ease and does not want for you hardship"? Certainly fasting is hard on those who can barely do it and ransom is easier.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 08:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Jamaal `Ataaya rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 180-183. One particularly interesting point he quoted from Ar-Raazi (from his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 3, page 60) is that the epilogue of 2:185 does not befit the conclusion of abrogation. The abrogation claim is that fasting is now a must on those who can barely do it after initially allowing them to ransom instead. If that's the case, then how come God ends 2:185 with the words "God wants for you ease and does not want for you hardship"? Certainly fasting is hard on those who can barely do it and ransom is easier.

Although I agree that 2:184 was not abrogated, I don't buy this reasoning since the easing could be simply a comment on the other exception (the sick and the traveling). In fact, the words that follow in 2:185 "and complete the count" supports that this is talking about the sick and traveling, since those who can barely fast and take advantage of the exemption in 2:184 do not fast any number of alternative days.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 18:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani points out on page 71 that the Arabs often use the negative article لا, not for negation but for negativity. As an example, he quotes a poem by Qays ibn `Aasim Al-Minqari in which he says,
بيوم جدود لا فضحتم أباكم --- وسالمتموا والخيل تدمي شكيمها

Translation: On the day of Judood (a battle named after a place belonging to the Banu Tameem tribe), you did not disgrace your father, and yielded [to your enemies] when the horses were staining their bits with blood.

The meaning actually is: You disgraced your father by your quick surrender; shame on you.

He says the Quran showed the same style, e.g.,

where the words say "So that the People of the Book may not know..." but the meaning is "So that the people of the Book may know ... They ought to know."

He mentions this to explain the opinion of As-Suddi and Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi who said the meaning of يطيقونه (can barely do it) is لا يطيقونه (cannot do it).

That is an interesting point, and it's good to know about this Arabic style. But it amounts to the same thing in the end: The word refers to a borderline action, i.e., they can hardly do it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 18:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani points out on page 71 that the Arabs often use the negative article لا, not for negation but for negativity.
...

He mentions this to explain the opinion of As-Suddi and Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi who said the meaning of يطيقونه (can barely do it) is لا يطيقونه (cannot do it).

I am sorry, but the logic doesn't go through. He established that the use of لا may not mean negation. He did not establish that the lack of use of لا may mean negation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I am sorry, but the logic doesn't go through. He established that the use of لا may not mean negation. He did not establish that the lack of use of لا may mean negation.

Exactly. I was about to edit my post to add that remark! If the absence of the negation article may mean negation, then any positive action may be thought of as its opposite. That would negate the whole notion of negation ;)

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
That would negate the whole notion of negation ;)

:D

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2010, 16:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 83-85, refutes this claim with arguments similar to the ones already presented. He quotes Imaam Muhammad Abduh confirming that the verb يطيقونه means "can hardly do it."

He also quotes a hadeeth, reported without an attribution chain in Al-Bukhaari, in which Anas ibn Maalik, may God have been pleased with him, is said to have ransomed his fasting when he got old. His son Umar was asked if his father could fast. He answered that he couldn't. That proves that ransom is an option only for those who cannot fast. Taahir says that this hadeeth was fully attributed by Abu-Ya`la in his Musnad book.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2010, 17:42 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 83-85, refutes this claim with arguments similar to the ones already presented. He quotes Imaam Muhammad Abduh confirming that the verb يطيقونه means "can hardly do it."

He also quotes a hadeeth, reported without an attribution chain in Al-Bukhaari, in which Anas ibn Maalik, may God have been pleased with him, is said to have ransomed his fasting when he got old. His son Umar was asked if his father could fast. He answered that he couldn't. That proves that ransom is an option only for those who cannot fast. Taahir says that this hadeeth was fully attributed by Abu-Ya`la in his Musnad book.

Two points:

1. The English expression "can hardly do X" can be used as an example where, literally, it means "do X with difficulty" whereas the linguistic meaning is unambiguously "cannot do X." Of course this does not prove that the Arabic expression is the same, but it does show how such an expression can be adapted.

2. I would not take the story of Anas as evidence for the meaning of يطيقونه since we do not know what Anas could and could not do, the opinion of his son may or may not be correct, not to mention that whatever action Anas did, that was his interpretation of the license.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2010, 02:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
1. The English expression "can hardly do X" can be used as an example where, literally, it means "do X with difficulty" whereas the linguistic meaning is unambiguously "cannot do X." Of course this does not prove that the Arabic expression is the same, but it does show how such an expression can be adapted.

I was terse in my translation of what Imaam Muhammad Abduh said. What he said was that the word is used by the Arabs to indicate borderline ability. That is, an iota short of inability. That, if I understand correctly, is also what the adverb "hardly" means. It makes sense since God says "God wants for you ease; He does not want for you hardship." (2:185) Anything above that borderline falls in the category of hardship.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2010, 04:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I was terse in my translation of what Imaam Muhammad Abduh said. What he said was that the word is used by the Arabs to indicate borderline ability. That is, an iota short of inability. That, if I understand correctly, is also what the adverb "hardly" means.

I struggled with 'hardly' in my school days because it was counterintuitive that it actually means 'not' in this context, but I believe that's what it means indeed, which is hardly intuitive. :D

You are correct about 'borderline ability'. The point of all of this is that the Arabic verb does not mean someone who cannot fast, but rather someone who can fast, but with difficulty.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 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 28 Mar 2024, 14:04

All times are UTC

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