TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2500 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Linguistic [ 07 Jan 2010, 08:17 ] |
Post subject: | Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Scholars have said that the option of ransom for the inability to fast, stated in 2:184, was abrogated by the only option of fasting later as stated in 2:185. Here are the two verses, is claimed to have been abrogated by One obvious argument against abrogation here is that 2:184 continues from 2:183 which mandates fasting but does not say when, while 2:185 specifies the month of Ramadan. Thus, the two verses talk about two different events. 2:184 speaks of fasting in general, which was initially mandated on the 10th of Muharram only and 2:185 speaks of the specific fasting in Ramadan which was established as the only remaining mandated fasting. Now, does that mean that fasting ransom is no longer acceptable? I do not know of anybody among the abrogationists who says that. I am not 100% positive why they don't, but I can see an easy explanation. Both verses mention two categories of exempted people: the sick and the travelers. 2:184 mentions one more category that 2:185 does not and that is الذين يطيقونه "those who can barely do it." So, the ruling for those folks is found in 2:184. 2:185 chose not to repeat it for whatever reason. Since the ruling remains valid, its verse cannot be abrogated. The reason 2:185 does not repeat that category could very well be to refute the abrogation claim of 2:184. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 07 Jan 2010, 20:11 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
I remember this one from a discussion years ago. The perceived 'conflict' is that verse 2:184 (which elaborates the fasting requirement on Moslems stated in 2:183) has a part that says "..wa ala alladhina yutiqunahu fedyaton.." which was interpreted by some as providing an exception for people not to fast if they find it hard, while verse 2:185 (which identifies Ramadan as the month where fasting is required) does not provide for the same exception. I don't see a case for abrogation here. The conflict is not between the two verses, but between two interpretations of the above part within verse 2:184. The two interpretations differ in whether the pronoun "hu" (highlighted above) refers to fasting or to feeding a poor person, and also on whether "yutiq" (highlighted above) should be understood by an indirect meaning (find it hard to) or by its direct meaning (can bear or withstand). The two interpretations are reflected in the translations by Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Asad (not a linguistic difference here, but an interpretive difference): YA: "..For those who can do it (With hardship), is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent.." (part of 2:184) MA: "..and [in such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person." (same part of 2:184) Mohammad Asad further comments on the conflict by saying: Quote: This phrase has been subject to a number of conflicting and sometimes highly laboured interpretations. My rendering is based on the primary meaning of alladhina yutiqunahu ("those who are capable of it" or "are able to do it" or "can afford it"), with the pronoun hu relating to the act of "feeding a needy person". I am not taking sides here. I am just focusing on the question "is there a case for abrogation here?" Since there is a reasonable interpretation that implies no conflict between the two verses, I do not see a case for abrogation.
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 16 Jan 2010, 00:22 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Of particular interest is what Ibn Al-Jawzi reports in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan" about these verses, وأخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قل أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا بشران قال أبنا إسحاق الكاذي قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا روح قال بنا زكريا بن إسحق قال بنا عمرو بن دينار عن عطاء أنه سمع ابن عباس يقرأ "وعلى الذين يطيقونه فدية" قال ليست بمنسوخة وهو الشيخ الكبير والمرأة الكبير لا يستطيعان أن يصوما فيطعما مكان كل يوم مسكينا. أخبرنا أبو بكر العامري قال أبنا علي بن الفضل قال أبنا بن عبد الصمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال أبنا إبراهيم بن حريم قال أبنا عبد الحميد قال أبنا عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن أيوب عن عكرمة قال كان ابن عباس يقول لم ينسخ It is often Ibn-Abbaas, may God have been pleased with him, who pointed out abrogation, but in this case he said there was no abrogation, rather 2:184 refers to the elderly. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 22 Jan 2010, 17:47 ] |
Post subject: | Who said what |
For: Mu`aazh, Qataada (according to Al-Khazraji), Ibn Abbaas (in one report per Az-Zalmi on page 132), Ibn Umar, Ikrima, `Alqama (ibn Qays?), Al-Hasan (in one report), `Ataa' (in one report), Ad-Dhahhaak (according to At-Tabari, says Dr. Zayd), Ibn Abi-Layla, Salama ibn Al-Akwa`, Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri (in one report), Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, Makki (quoted by Dr. Faaris in the footnotes on page 107 of his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, from Makki's book الإيضاح, pages 149-150), An-Nahhaas (in one report), Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Baarizi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, An-Nasfi, As-Suyooti, Az-Zurqaani. Against: Abu-Hurayra, `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah (in another report) Ibn `Abbaas (in several other reports, per Ar-Raazi quoted by `Ataaya on pages 180-181; also Az-Zalmi on page 133, Al-Ghaali on page 75 and Nada on page 93), Ikrima, As-Suddi and Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi (implied), Al-Hasan Al-Basri 9in another report), Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri (implied by two other reports), Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Mujaahid (according to Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن العزيز, page 74, says Haani Taahir), Anas ibn Maalik, Qays ibn As-Saa'ib, Abul-`Aaliya, Yahya ibn Sa`d and Al-Layth ibn Sa`d, Saalim ibn Abdillah, Maalik ibn Anas, Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Al-Khazraji), Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Abu-Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm, Rabee`a ibn Abi-Abdirrahmaan Farrookh, Khaalid ibn Ad-Durayk, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim and Al-Awzaa`i, Ash-Shaafi`i, An-Nahhaas (in another report per Az-Zalmi on page 132), Al-Bukhaari (according to Dr. Zayd), Al-Asfahaani, Ar-Raazi, Al-Qurtubi (who said that the other report from Ibn Abbaas means naskh in general, not abrogation), Shah Waliullah Dehlvi, Muhammad Abduh and M. Rasheed Ridha, Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek), Dr. Mustafa Zayd, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, M.M. Nada, Dr. Az-Zalmi, Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa, Husaam Al-Ghaali, Ihab Hasan Abduh, Jamaal `Ataaya. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 02 Mar 2010, 02:14 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
In his book, البيان في تفسير القرآن, As-Sayyid Al-Khoo'i writes about this claim and refutes it as follows, ودعوى النسخ في هذه الآية الكريمة واضحة الثبوت لو كان المراد من الطوق السعة والقدرة، فإن مفاد الآية على هذا: أن من يستطع الصوم فله أن لا يصوم ويعطي الفدية: طعام مسكين بدلا عنه، فتكون منسوخة. ولكن من البين أن المراد من الطاقة: القدرة مع المشقة العظيمة. وحاصل المراد من الآية: أن الله تعالى بعد أن أوجب الصوم وجوبا تعيينيا في الآية السابقة، وأسقطه عن المسافر والمريض، وأوجب عليهما عدة من أيام أخر بدلا عنه، أراد أن يبين حكما آخر لصنف آخر من الناس وهم الذين يجدون في الصوم مشقة عظيمة وجهدا بالغا، كالشيخ الهرم، وذي العطاش، والمريض الذي استمر مرضه إلى شهر رمضان ألى آخره، فأسقط عنهم وجوب الصوم أداء وقضاء، وأوجب عليهم الفدية، فالآية المباركة حيث دلت على تعيين وجوب الصوم على المؤمنين في الأيام المعدودات، وعلى تعين وجوبه قضاء في أيام أخر على المريض والمسافر، كانت ظاهرة في أن وجوب الفدية تعيينا إنما هو على غير هذين الصنفين اللذين تعين عليهما الصوم، ومع هذا فكيف يدعى أن المستفاد من الآية هو الوجوب التخييري بين الصوم والفدية لمن تمكن من الصوم، وإن أخبار أهل البيت مستفيضة بما ذكرناه في تفسير الآية. ولفظ الطاقة وإن استعمل في معنى القدرة والسعة إلا أن معناه اللغوي هو القدرة مع المشقة العظيمة، وإعمال غاية الجهد. ففي لسان العرب: "الطوق الطاقة أي أقصى غايته، وهو اسم لمقدار ما يمكنه أن يفعله بمشقة منه". ونقل عن ابن الأثير والراغب أيضا التصريح بذلك. ولو سلمنا أن معنى الطاقة هي السعة كان اللفظ الإطاقة بمعنى إيجاد السعة في الشئ، فلا بد من أن يكون الشئ في نفسه مضيقا لتكون سعته ناشئة من قبل الفاعل، ولا يكون هذا إلا مع إعمال غاية الجهد. قال في تفسير المنار نقلا عن شيخه: "فلا تقول العرب: أطاق الشئ إلا إذا كانت قدرته عليه في نهاية الضعف، بحيث يتحمل به مشقة شديدة". فالآية الكريمة محكمة لا نسخ لها، ومدلولها حكم مغاير لحكم من وجب عليه الصوم أداء وقضاء. وجميع ما قدمناه مبني على القراءة المعروفة. أما على قراءة ابن عباس، وعائشة، وعكرمة، وابن المسيب حيث قرأوا يطوقونه بصيغة المبني للمجهول من باب التفعيل فالأمر أوضح ـ He confirms the meaning of يطيقونه as "can barely make it" and as such there can be no abrogation. He also brings out the point that Ibn Abbaas, Aa'isha, Ikrima and Ibn Al-Musayyib, may God have been pleased with them, all recited the word in the passive tense, i.e., يُطَوَّقونه, meaning "made unbearable to them", makes the case even clearer that there is no abrogation. This could very well be why Ibn Abbaas was against the abrogation claim here. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 19 May 2010, 04:45 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Linguistic wrote: He confirms the meaning of يطيقونه as "can barely make it" and as such there can be no abrogation. He also brings out the point that Ibn Abbaas, Aa'isha, Ikrima and Ibn Al-Musayyib, may God have been pleased with them, all recited the word in the passive tense, i.e., يُطَوَّقونه, meaning "made unbearable to them", makes the case even clearer that there is no abrogation. Nada dedicates pages 92-97 of his book to this claim, focusing on linguistic evidence (pretty elaborate, with scholarly quotes) that يطيقونه means "can barely do it" and makes the same conclusion that there is no abrogation. This got me thinking about the claim and its refutation. I don't see how the interpretation of يطيقونه as "can barely do it" or "can easily do it" affects the abrogation claim, since the claim is based on the fact that there is an exception (whatever it is) to the mandate in the first verse but there is no such exception to the mandate in the second verse. My new view on this is that the first verse institutes the duty of fasting, therefore it includes all exceptions from that duty, while the second verse institutes the timing of fasting, therefore it needs to include only the timing exceptions. The timing exceptions are only those for the sick or traveling, since there is no timing exception for those who are unable to fast at all (regardless of the threshold of what would constitute 'unable'). |
Author: | Linguistic [ 20 May 2010, 03:32 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Pragmatic wrote: My new view on this is that the first verse institutes the duty of fasting, therefore it includes all exceptions from that duty, while the second verse institutes the timing of fasting, therefore it needs to include only the timing exceptions. The timing exceptions are only those for the sick or traveling, since there is no timing exception for those who are unable to fast at all (regardless of the threshold of what would constitute 'unable'). How insightful! I don't recall reading a similar argument elsewhere. It reminds me of the many claims that the Zakah verse, 9:60, has abrogated the charity verses. It only specified whom charity is to be given to, that's all. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 29 May 2010, 05:18 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
On page 336 of his book, Ihab discusses this abrogation claim, but he makes a sophomoric mistake IMHO. He reversed the abrogated and abrogating (does this mean هلكت وأهلكت ? ), then argued that the exemption for difficulty in 2:184 is an exception from the command to fast Ramadan in 2:185, so it is not abrogation. Strange glitch. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 07 Jun 2010, 23:19 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Al-Ghali makes three main points on pages 71-76 of his book as he refutes this abrogation claim, which include some original angles.
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 30 Aug 2010, 15:05 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 2:185 abrogate 2:184? |
Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam discusses this claim at great length in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 47-70 and agrees with the claim. Ibn Salaam quotes several versions of the hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in which he says, "It is not of goodness to fast while traveling." Reported by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu-Daawood, An-Nasaa'i, Ibn Maajah, Ibn Hanbal, Ad-Daarimi, and Ibn Khuzayma and narrated by Ka`b ibn`Aasim Al-Ash`ari and Jaabir ibn Abdillah. That hadeeth confirms that there is no abrogation case that can be made here, since the abrogation claim assumes that fasting is always the better option. It's not. Ibn Salaam divides up scholars opinions on this claim nicely into the following divisions:
|
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |