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.  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 01:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The approach simply asserts that 58:13 does not change any prescription at all, whether it was a requirement, a recommendation, or otherwise, that 58:12 may have instituted. What 58:13 does, given its specific wording, is to inform us about forgiveness of past actions only. It doesn't promise forgiveness of the same offense in the future (which would arguably be tantamount to relief from an obligation).

Does this specific statement hold in your opinion?

I don't think it will hold. Because of the article إذ. It means "now that" or "since", which makes the statement about forgiveness an interjection. So, the meaning of 58:13 is like this: "I'm disappointed that you did not offer charity. Why didn't you? Well, I forgive you. Now that you haven't done that, then at least establish prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His messenger..."

I'm sure it's this interpretation that prompted so many scholars to conclude that there is abrogation language in 58:13. I disagree, not because this interpretation is wrong, but because it complements 58:12 as I mentioned in prior posts.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 01:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I don't think it will hold. Because of the article إذ. It means "now that" or "since", which makes the statement about forgiveness an interjection. So, the meaning of 58:13 is like this: "I'm disappointed that you did not offer charity. Why didn't you? Well, I forgive you. Now that you haven't done that, then at least establish prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His messenger..."

Good discussion, and a very nice phrasing of what the verse communicates. Now here is the pointed question. What exactly is in this wording that says that Muslims are no longer under whatever obligation that they were under per 58:12? They were forgiven for having violated it, yes, but where in the wording is the promise of forgiveness if they were to do the violation again?

Let me put it another way. God exercises forgiveness on those who violated his required commands all the time (otherwise we would all be in deep trouble). I am asserting that 58:13 only says that previous violations of 58:12, not future violations, have been forgiven. I am asserting this because that's what the wording of 58:13 bears. That leaves in place the command of 58:12, to the extent that it has existed before.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 07:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The article used in 58:13 is "فإذ" which would translate to "so when" and is followed by past-tense verbs (the first verb "تفعلوا" is present-tense, but is negated by the past-tense article "لم" so it describes something in the past). This is not a conditional sentence, so the use of past tense means the past (rather than a generic tense that covers the present and future like the case of a conditional "إذا" for example).

There is only one other use of "فإذ" in the Quran ("إذ" by itself is used a lot),


and this verse is in the context of the Ifk incident. The translation of "فإذ" as "so, when" or "Therefore, since" are both pretty good. Here are my observations given these two uses:

1. Contrary to a conditional construct (using "إذا" for example), this construct asserts that the statement after "فإذ" actually took place, and it took place in the time tense used.

2. Although it does assert that the statement after "فإذ" took place, this is not the main assertion of the construct, but only an explanation for the main assertion to follow.

3. The main assertion is what would follow after the second "ف", which is the command to uphold the prayers in 58:13 and the statement that those people are liars in 24:13.

Therefore, I believe it is air-tight that the wording of 58:13 does not remove the obligation of 58:12. It provides after-the-fact relief and means of repentance for those who didn't follow 58:12. I can see how people could violate 58:12 by simply putting themselves under the hardship exception in it without full justification (although this would not be blatant violation since hardship is subjective), and that's perhaps why blanket forgiveness was given and the repentance mechanism ordered was nothing more than doing the duties they would do anyway.

BTW, I think the role of 58:12 was to reduce the load on the Prophet (PBUH) which was getting out of control. People probably approached the Prophet less after 58:12, either because they didn't want to give charity or because they weren't comfortable using the hardship clause. The end result was the intended one, to put the brakes on a work load that was going out of control.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 10:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Three remarks (unrelated to each other):

1. In his summary book, المصفى بأكف أهل الرسوخ من علم الناسخ والمنسوخ لابن الجوزي, Ibn Al-Jawzi does not include 58:12-13 as a case of abrogation, although he includes a lot of abrogation claims using the sword verse. Not sure what this signifies.

2. There is a wording difference between 58:12 and 58:13 that may or may not have significance. 58:12 uses the word "صدقة" (singular) while 58:13 uses the word "صدقات" (plural), although the addressee in both verses is plural, and the word used for consultation in both verses is the same "نجواكم" (singular referred to plural).

3. The substantiation of this abrogation claim in all the books that I have seen is based on a narration of Aly, may God be pleased with him. There is more than one version, one says that 58:12-13 were revealed one after the other, and another version says that there was a time gap between them.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 16:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
BTW, I think the role of 58:12 was to reduce the load on the Prophet (PBUH) which was getting out of control. People probably approached the Prophet less after 58:12, either because they didn't want to give charity or because they weren't comfortable using the hardship clause. The end result was the intended one, to put the brakes on a work load that was going out of control.

Excellent point. I can just picture a man at the time, with a legitimate need for a private counsel with the Prophet (PBUH), but who cannot afford to offer a charity. Yet, because he's so pious, he does not deem himself exempt. So, he figures the safest thing to do to avoid violating God's command is to not go to the Prophet!

Then, I can see another man with less than an urgent need for private counsel with the Prophet (PBUH) and would have taken his time if it didn't cost him anything.

This is supported by the proper visitation manners God enjoins in Chapter 49, for instance:

And in Chapter 33, such as:

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2010, 07:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Professor Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa refutes this case on the basis of contingency. He writes,

وجه الإحكام أن الحكم معلل، أي إن رفع الصدقة كان بسبب أو علة وهي الإشفاق، متى زال الإشفاق عادت الصدقة

Translation: The view of no abrogation is based on the contingency of apprehension about giving a charity before consultation. When there is no apprehension, the charity becomes required.

It's an interesting angle; that what prevented Muslims from offering charity was apprehension about it. It's plausible, since the Prophet (PBUH) has mentioned many times to them that he is not allowed to accept charity.

Update: He mentions further, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 44, that the notion of abrogation here arose from thinking that the charity was required and was subsequently dropped. There are no words in 58:12 that imply a requirement. Quite the contrary: the words "This is better for you and purer" clearly indicate a preference.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2010, 06:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about this famous case. He appears to agree about the abrogation claim:

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة المجادلة. قوله تعالى "إذا ناجيتم الرسول فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة". أخبرنا عبد الأول بن عيسى قال أبنا ابن المظفر الداوودي قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حموية قال أبنا إبراهيم بن حريم قال بنا عبد بن حميد قال حدثني أبي شيبة قال حدثي بن آدم قال حدثني عبيد الله الأشجعي عن سفيان بن سعيد عن عثمان بن المغيرة الثقفي عن سالم بن أبي الجعد عن علي بن علقمة الأنماري عن علي بن أبي طالب قال: 'لما نزلت "يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ناجيتم الرسول فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة"، قال لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما ترى دينارا قال قلت لا يطيقونه قال فكم؟ قلت شعيرة قال إنك لزهيد! قال فنزل "أأشفقتم أن تقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقات" الآية. فبي خفف الله عز وجل عن هذه الأمة'.
أخبرنا علي بن أبي عمر قال أبنا علي بن أيوب قال أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال بنا أحمد بن إسحاق بن سحاب قال بنا محمد بن أحمد بن أبي العوام قال بنا سعيد بن سليمان قال بنا أبو شهاب عن ليث عن مجاهد قال قال علي بن أبي طالب: 'آية في كتاب الله عز وجل ما عمل بها أحد من الناس غيري آية النجوى. كان لي دينار فبعته بعشرة دراهم، فكلما أردت أن أناجي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تصدقت بدرهم. فما عمل بها أحد قبلي ولا بعدي'.
أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال أبنا أحمد بن محمد قال حدثني علي بن الحسين عن أبيه عن يزيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "إذا ناجيتم الرسول فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة" نسختها الآية التي تليها "أأشفقتم أن تقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقات" أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ناجيتم الرسول فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة" نسختها "أأشفقتم أن تقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقات". قال أحمد وبنا عبد الرزاق قال بنا ابن عيينة عن سليمان الأحول عن مجاهد "فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة" قال أمر أن لا يناجي أحد منهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى يتصدق بين يدي ذلك وكان أول من تصدق علي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه ورضي الله عنه فناجاه فلم يناجه أحد غيره ثم نزلت الرخصة "أأشفقتم أن تقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقات".
قال عبد الرزاق وبنا معمر عن قتادة "إذا ناجيتم الرسول" إنها منسوخة ما كانت إلا ساعة من نهار.
أخبرنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ قال أبنا أبو الفضل بن خيرون وأبو طاهر الباقلاوي قالا أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال أبنا أحمد بن كامل قال حدثني محمد ابن سعد قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني عمي عن أبيه عن جده عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "فقدموا بين يدي نجواكم صدقة" قال كان المسلمون يقدمون بين يدي النجوي صدقة فلما نزلت الزكاة نسخ هذا. قلت كأنه أشار إلى الآية التي بعدها وفيها "فأقيموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة".
قال المفسرون نزل قوله "أأشفقتم" أي خفتم بالصدقة الفاقة "وتاب الله عليكم" أي تجاوز عنكم وخفف بنسخ إيجاب الصدقة. قال مقاتل بن حيان إنما كان ذلك عشر ليال وقد ذكرنا عن قتادة أنه قال ما كان إلا ساعة من نهار

He reports two different narrations from Ali about this incident: in one narration, Ali said that he was asked by the Prophet to offer a charity but Ali didn't have anything but a barley! The Prophet joked at him, "How austere of you!" Then 58:13 was revealed and Ali commented, "Thus, thanks to me, a burden on Muslims was eased!"

In the other narration, Ali is reported to have said that he was the only one to offer a charity, a dirham (silver coin), before consulting the Prophet (PBUH). Mujaahid confirms that report.

Ibn Al-Jawzi also reports two different reports about the time that elapsed between the two verses. Qataada said it was an hour of a day but Muqaatil ibn Hayyaan said it was ten nights.

Ibn Al-Jawzi also reports two different narrations tracing to Ibn Abbaas. In one, he is reported to have said that 58:13 abrogated 58:12 and in the other he said it was the Zakah verse, 9:60, that abrogated 58:12.

Muhammad Nada writes in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, page 157, that Ibn Al`Arabi, in his book أحكام القرآن الكريم, volume 4, pages 1761-1762, has rated all the narrations attributed to Ali about this claim as weak and unauthentic. He approved the claim nevertheless!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 05:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
I found another Quranic example of forgiveness of a violation without removing the requirement that was violated:


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 07 May 2010, 03:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Ghazali's view

This abrogation claim is one of the 'big 3' that Al-Ghazali addressed in his book (page 211). He singled them out as the cases where the wording of the verse may be construed as declaring that abrogation has taken place. He is against this abrogation claim, but his explanation is technical and brief, and I could not understand it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 11 May 2010, 21:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Khodari's view

On page 255 of his book, Muhammad Al-Khodari provides a smart angle on this abrogation claim. He says that 58:13 explains that the charity does not have to be offered money, but could be just doing the prayers and paying the alms which constitute a charity.

_________________
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.  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 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, 15:49

All times are UTC

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