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
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2010, 13:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 139-143 (items 883-888), rejects this claim and wonders how can anybody think there was ever a free choice between fasting and ransoming on people who could afford to fast! He asks three logical questions:

  1. The sick and the traveling are required to compensate the fast at a later time when they are not sick or traveling. How can that be if they could always ransom it?
  2. The fact that fasting has been written upon us, means that we can do it! So, how can there be an option not to do it for no excuse?
  3. How can God say that He intends for us ease and not hardship if ransoming the fast is no longer acceptable? Fasting is harder than ransoming it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 12:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 47, presents an argument for this claim and another against it and does not choose one. His argument for the claim is that 2:184 offered a choice between fasting and a ransom, while 2:185 stated that fasting is better.

Now, that is not abrogation, is it? It's a clear instance of elaboration, which is a valid meaning of naskh. Giving you two choices then saying later that one of the two choices is better does not abrogate the fact that you still have two choices.

His argument against the claim is that 2:184 gives a license to those who can barely fast, not two choices.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 18:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his presentation of Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 72, mentions two interesting pieces of evidence that the lack of mentioning the negative article has been used in Arabic to mean negation!

His first evidence is compelling! (12:85),
Image

The literal translation would be: They (Jacob's sons) said [to him], "By God, you cease to mention Joseph until you become prey or become one of the perished." Jacob's sons (PBUH) meant "By God you are never going to stop mentioning Joseph..."

The other evidence is a line of poetry, which Dr. Faaris tried all he could to find anywhere else and failed:

أوصيك أن يحمدك الأقارب...ويرجع المسكين وهو خائب

Literal translation would be: I bequeath you that kin praise you and that the poor return disappointed! But the meaning, as the Arabs would get it, is that the poor do not return disappointed.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:40 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
The example in the Quranic verse 12:85 is indeed compelling. The example in the poem may be dismissed as poetic license.

IMHO, it is a "hardly" type of negation (taken literally, not as a linguistic expression of negation); something like "for those who can barely withstand fasting" or "you can barely stop mentioning Youssof until.."

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2014, 21:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
During my translation effort of 2:184, I noticed that several translators have understood the pronoun in يطيقونه "can barely do it", to refer to the ransom and not to fasting! While that understanding is possible with Arabic grammar, I find it very unlikely.

The implications of that understanding are: (a) that a person who chooses not to fast and can muster a ransom for it should do so! And (b) If he can't even do that then what? I guess he has to fast.

This makes little sense, since it would then advantage the rich: If you're rich and don't feel like fasting, go ahead and ransom it. If you're poor, however, tough luck. If that was the impression of some of the pro-abrogation scholars, and I very much doubt it, then I respectfully say that such impression is off-base.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 17:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Several translators have understood the pronoun in يطيقونه "can barely do it", to refer to the ransom and not to fasting! While that understanding is possible with Arabic grammar, I find it very unlikely.

The implications of that understanding are: (a) that a person who chooses not to fast and can muster a ransom for it should do so! And (b) If he can't even do that then what? I guess he has to fast.

This makes little sense, since it would then advantage the rich

Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 59, rejects this claim on the basis that the third person pronoun in يطيقونه, which he translates as "can afford it", refers to the feeding of the poor, not to the fasting. He does not, however, give a license to the rich, only to those who physically cannot fast, such as the elderly.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2017, 19:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
During my translation effort of 2:184, I noticed that several translators have understood the pronoun in يطيقونه "can barely do it", to refer to the ransom and not to fasting! While that understanding is possible with Arabic grammar, I find it very unlikely.

Related conversation outside the forum:

Question:

I wanted to clarify one point about Asad's interpretation of 2:184 (which I am not big on). Is it linguistically correct to parse the object of "يُطيقونَهُ" in

على الذين يُطيقونَهُ فدية طعام مسكين

as being the "فدية" itself (they can afford the ransom) even when "فدية" is feminine and the "هُ" refers to masculine? If it is incorrect, is it possible that the masculine reference is about "طعام مسكين" rather than "فدية"?

I am just asking linguistically :). I think the construct that fits Asad's interpretation would be

على الذين يُطيقونَ فدية طعام مسكين

but I want to know for sure.

Answer:

With all due respect for him, this is incorrect. As you said, the reference is to a masculine. It also cannot refer to طعام because that is simply an aposition noun (بدل). The verb يطيق simply means border-line can, barely can, can but only after expending all effort. It's like "hardly" in English.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184?
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2020, 14:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghali makes three main points on pages 71-76 of his book as he refutes this abrogation claim, which include some original angles.

  1. There are credible narrations of the Sahaba supporting this abrogation claim, and there are credible narrations opposing it, and in one case by the same Sahabi (Ibn Abbas).

On page 74, he quotes Al-Qurtubi, from his exegesis, part 2, page 193, commenting on that saying that both narrations are correct and explains that by saying that the first narration, approving abrogation, is a case of specification rather than abrogation because "often the former scholars called specification a naskh" (فكثيرا ما يطلق المتقدمون النسخ بمعناه).

Al-Ghaali then mentioned that Ibn Al-Jawzi also had two opinions, one for abrogation and one against it quoting Ibn Abbaas. And Ar-Raazi and As-Suddi were against it citing the excuse for the elderly. And Anas (ibn Maalik) in his old age used the fidya option and didn't fast because he was ill. Al-Hasan Al-Basri was asked about the pregnant and the nursing and gave the ruling that they may use the fidya option.

Al-Ghaali quotes Imam Muhammad Abduh, from his exegesis "Al-Manaar", and agrees with him, that those whose excuse is temporary must make up for the fast later and only those whose excuse is permanent may take the fidya option. I respectfully disagree, since the verse says nothing about permanence or temporariness.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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, 14:21

All times are UTC

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