TheMostReadBook.org

It took me a bit to recognize why would anybody think that 58:13 abrogated 58:12. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


The point of abrogation is the mandate to give something to charity before one seeks private counsel with the prophet, peace be upon him. That is, such charity is no longer mandated. But 58:12 does not unconditionally mandate a charity, it says that if people don't have the means, it is OK. Furthermore, 58:13 states that those who did not give charity before private counsel with the prophet have been forgiven. Doesn't that mean that it wasn't a mandate in the first place, but rather a recommendation (ندب)? I see no case for abrogation here at all. The recommendation in 58:12 was still a good thing to do even after 58:13 was revealed.

I'm sure, Pragmatic, that you'd also add that the abrogation case, if there is even one here, is moot, since these verses apply only to the time when the prophet was alive. Whether abrogation occurred here has no bearing on the law in our time today, so the discussion is academic.

You guessed right . This case is so weak on so many grounds. One point of interest. Is it known that these two verses were even separated in time when they were revealed? They seem so complementary.

Just thought of proof that there is no mandate in 58:12. A man came to the prophet (pbuh) and asked him to witness his marriage. He asked him, "where is the dowry?" The man said he was too poor. The prophet replied, "Find even an iron ring!" He said, "By God, I don't even have that." The prophet said, "Do you know any verses of the Quran?" The man said yes. The prophet said, "Then your dowry is to teach it to your wife!"

That shows that a dowry is a mandate, no excuses are accepted. The command in 58:12, on the other hand, is excused in the same verse.

For:
The majority, according to An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Abbaas (in one report according to Ibn Al-Jawzi),
Qataada, Al-Hasan Al-Basri,
Ibn Jurayj, Mujaahid (quoted by Ibn Salaam),
Salama Ibn Kuhayl, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Al-Khazraji),
An-Nahhaas,
Makki,
Al-Fakhr Ar-Raazi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
As-Suyooti
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek) (implied, quoted by Al-Ghazaali quoted by Nada),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi, Az-Zurqaani and Dr. Hilmi Abdul-Haadi (according to Haani Taahir),
Al-Baydhaawi (quoted by Farghali),
Dr. M.M. Farghali.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (in another report),
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Judge Ibn Al`Arabi, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم,
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi (in his exegesis محاسن التأويل, according to Haani Taahir),
At-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi (implied, says Dr. Az-Zalmi),
Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaani (implied, quoted by Haani Taahir),
Ash-Shawkaani (implied),
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Muhammad Al-Ghazali,
M. M. Nada,
Sayyid Qutb (according to Nada),
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Jawaad Moosa Affaana,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Al-Ghaali,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Haani Taahir,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

Abul-Fakhr Ar-Raazi, who usually agreed with Al-Asfahaani, writes the following about this case in his exegesis, "At-Tafseer Al-Kabeer",


He says that Al-Asfahaani refutes abrogation here by saying that the ruling in 58:12 ended when the reason for it did. That reason being to distinguish the hypocrites from the believers; the hypocrites would be stingy. Ar-Raazi says that's not so because it would mean that anybody who did not offer a gift was a hypocrite and it's known that the only one who actually gave a gift was Ali.

I agree that Al-Asfahaani's reasoning here was lacking.

Totally agree with your assessment. Being the pragmatic person that I am , I reject false arguments even when I agree with the conclusion they are trying to establish.

In this case, I believe the verse was not abrogated because it applies only to the Muslims during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), so verses 58:12 and 58:13 are describing history, not rulings, in the text of the Quran. To put it another way, if 58:13 was never revealed, what ruling would 58:12 be mandating us to do?

This abrogation case is the only unanimous abrogation claim among the pro-abrogation scholars, and one of only 5 cases (of abrogated verses in the text of the Quran) that Dr. Mostafa Zaid supports in his book. The discussion is brief (pages 306-308 of volume 2) since he had already discussed this case in the context of different arguments throughout the book. I basically agree with most of what he said, except for that it constitutes abrogation . The reason is the dynamic/static argument. The strength of this case makes that argument crucial, so we'd better pin it down and polish it as it may be the make-or-break for our thesis.

One interesting point he raises is that both in this case and in the similar case of 73:20, the 'abrogating' verses have the command "establish the prayer and give the alms" after the part that lightens the burden in each case. He says that God, after removing an additional charity requirement in 58:12, and after removing an additional prayer requirement in 73:20, is reminding the Muslims of the basic requirement in these two areas that are still in place.

Muhammad Nada makes the same point, in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, page 157. Frankly, I don't see the static/dynamic argument to be compelling. That's because it doesn't refute abrogation; it only restricts it to an era. And one can argue that what applied to the Prophet (PBUH), may apply to Muslim authorities by analogy (Qiyaas).

Another interesting point to observe is the word إذ in 58:13, which means "since." That is, "Since you did not, and God has forgiven you..."

Clearly, Muslims did not take the command in 58:12 to be a mandate, only a recommendation. They felt at liberty to offer the charity or to not offer it. This is not hard to understand, since God says "This is purer for you" which means it is a better thing to do, not that not doing it is bad.

The two verses can therefore be combined in one consistent instruction,

"When you arrange for a private consultation with the Prophet, it is recommended, but not required, for those of you who can afford it that you offer a charity. If you do not, then at least establish prayer, pay alms and obey God and His messenger."

I am glad you mentioned this. I will try to polish the argument and make the point, but please continue to be critical.