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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 29 Aug 2010, 13:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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)?

Imaam Ash-Shawkaani, in his book فتح القدير, volume 5, page 190 (according to Jamaal `Ataaya) confirms this conclusion. He says, "God's words, 'This is better for you and more purifying' (58:12) is limiting the command. Complying with it is better than not complying with it. That means it's a recommendation and not a mandate."

`Ataaya adds that the epilogue of the verse confirms this further, "But if you cannot afford, then God is Forgiving and Merciful." (58:12).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 07:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Imaam Ash-Shawkaani, in his book فتح القدير, volume 5, page 190 (according to Jamaal `Ataaya) confirms this conclusion. He says, "God's words, 'This is better for you and more purifying' (58:12) is limiting the command. Complying with it is better than not complying with it. That means it's a recommendation and not a mandate."

Good point.

The challenge in this particular abrogation claim is to settle on a compelling angle for refuting the claim. There are several good points, but they need a unifying theme to make compelling argument.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2010, 11:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
I don't know if this will have bearing on the analysis of this abrogation claim, but I noticed tonight that a good part of Chapter 58 prior to 58:12-13 deals with issues of "whisper" (the Arabic word النجوى that is translated as private conversation/consultation) in contexts other than private consultation with the Prophet (PBUH), and the opening of the Chapter is about God hearing a private consultation a woman had with the Prophet.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2010, 16:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I don't know if this will have bearing on the analysis of this abrogation claim, but I noticed tonight that a good part of Chapter 58 prior to 58:12-13 deals with issues of "whisper" (the Arabic word النجوى that is translated as private conversation/consultation) in contexts other than private consultation with the Prophet (PBUH), and the opening of the Chapter is about God hearing a private consultation a woman had with the Prophet.

Good observation. I'd say it's related. Verses 58:12-13 were revealed in order to discourage the hypocrites and other time wasters from taking up the Prophet's time, peace be upon him. We don't know what they used to talk to him about but I wouldn't be surprised if they brought up petty disputes and gossip.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 18:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir rejects this claim, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 162, saying, "Offering a charity before consulting the Prophet (PBUH) was recommended and remained so."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 19:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir rejects this claim on pages 120-122 of his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان. He leans toward the argument that 58:12 was not a mandate but a recommendation. He quotes Al-Qaasimi and Ibn Hajar saying that. Ibn Hajar sees it as a privilege for the Muslim community. His point is that in prior nations, disobedience of God's commands were followed by tougher commands, whereas for Muslims, God made the commands easier.

As nice as this argument is, it isn't the case here at all. Muslims did not disobey the command in 58:12. It was an option that most of them chose not to take. The evidence that it was an option is the phrase "That is better for you and purer." The evidence that they chose not to take it is the opening question in 58:13, "Were you apprehensive about giving charity...?"

Taahir also makes an interesting observation. He says that while several scholars, such as Ibn Salaama, Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi and Mar`i Al-Karmi reported the narration of Ali, but none of them properly attributed it, i.e., state its narration chain.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2010, 19:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Areedh ... spends about a page out of four (329-332) to prove that acts of worship are never considered Sadaqa (charity)

And Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 142, proves that acts of worship are charity! He cites the hadeeth where some Sahaaba complained to the Prophet (PBUH), "The rich got all the reward! They pray like we do and fast like we do and have extra money to give to charity." The Prophet, peace be upon him, replied, "Did not God make for you what you can be charitable with? In every sanctification [of God] (تسبيحة) is a charity. In every glorification [of God] (تكبيرة) is a charity. Commanding what is recognized as good (أمر بالمعروف) is a charity. Forbidding the objectionable (نهي عن المنكر) is a charity. Placing a morsel of food in your wife's mouth is a charity!"

Al-Jabri's main refutation of this claim, however, is that 58:12 was revealed to curb the tendency of Muslims to waste the Prophet's time and that 58:13 confirms it by asking the reprimanding question, "Are you apprehensive that you are to pay a charity before private consultation [with the Prophet (PBUH)]? Don't be! Every act of worship is a charity."

Al-Jabri sees 58:12 as instruction for Muslims not to waste the time of the scholars and other authorities with trivia.

Finally, Al-Jabri adds a few points to his refutation, on page 142:
  • Al-Asfahaani was the first scholar to reject this claim.
  • Some scholars have stated that abrogation cannot be without a replacement. This was mentioned by As-Suyooti in his book الإكليل, page 207. This is interesting since 58:13 does not replace the charity called for in 58:12 with anything that Muslims did not already do.
  • All narrations claiming abrogation of 58:12 are unfounded.
  • The argument that hypocrites were segregated from believers as a result of 58:12 is invalid. When did that happen, wonders Al-Jabri. He says that a hypocrite who has gone with the Prophet (PBUH) to battle to cover up his hypocrisy, would such a person be kept away from spying on the Prophet (PBUH) because of a small required charity?

    If I recall, that was the argument of Al-Asfahaani. If we actually do not have any authentic record that hypocrites stopped going to the Prophet (PBUH) for consultation after 58:12, then Al-Asfahaani's argument is was a mere guess.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2011, 15:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 38, Dr. Husayn Nassaar mentions Az-Zurqaani's criticism of Al-Asfahaani in four points, one of which is:

Linguistic wrote:
What the word الباطل means is the opposite of the truth. Thus, the Quran contains "logical, wise, factual and fixed" words. Az-Zurqaani then proceeded to conclude that this leads to abrogation! Because, he said, abrogation is a wise, Divine decision called for by what is best for people.

I'd like to ask Az-Zurqaani how does that apply to, say, the case of 58:13/58:12? A case approved abrogated by the majority of the pro-abrogation scholars, including Az-Zurqaani.

What exactly has changed during the one month (in one narration), or the one hour (in another narration) that prompted God to annul the charity requirement and replace it with keeping up the prayers and alms and obeying God and His Messenger, three things Muslims are required to keep regardless?

Did God not know that only Ali would comply? :astaghfir: Was God not able to rephrase 58:12 to ensure that His order in it is not meant to be permanent or general, but temporary or specific to those who can afford it?

Nay! God phrased 58:12 perfectly, but man didn't get it. God makes it clear that what He is ordering is "better and more purifying" for Muslims, a clear construct of recommendation, not mandate. He also clearly says that those who cannot afford it are forgiven if they do not do it.

So, what was annulled by 58:13?

I'd answer that by saying that if 58:13 annulled anything, it annulled the guilt feeling that Muslims had, who did not give charity before meeting the Prophet (PBUH) privately for consultation. Those Muslims should not have had that guilt feeling, because 58:12 has already stated that they were forgiven. But they did. That's why 58:13 was revealed to confirm, rather than abrogate, 58:12.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2011, 17:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
God phrased 58:12 perfectly, but man didn't get it. God makes it clear that what He is ordering is "better and more purifying" for Muslims, a clear construct of recommendation, not mandate. He also clearly says that those who cannot afford it are forgiven if they do not do it.

So, what was annulled by 58:13?

I'd answer that by saying that if 58:13 annulled anything, it annulled the guilt feeling that Muslims had, who did not give charity before meeting the Prophet (PBUH) privately for consultation. Those Muslims should not have had that guilt feeling, because 58:12 has already stated that they were forgiven. But they did. That's why 58:13 was revealed to confirm, rather than abrogate, 58:12.

Very nice!

This is a compelling argument, and it is so valuable since this is the #1 case for abrogation in most literature.

Let me add a minor point of support. The use of "إذ" (now that) rather than "إذا" (if) in 58:13 makes it clear that no modification of the command for future use is invoked. The past implication of "إذ" fits your guilt argument perfectly. It gives those who feel guilty a prescription to do something to feel less guilty, albeit something they are supposed to do (and probably already doing anyway). It is an example of


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2013, 12:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
This is a long post, but it carries a new point. I haven't re-read the thread as I write this, so it could be redundant with some of what has already been said, but here goes. At this point, the two cases that I am not 100% comfortable with their anti-abrogation arguments are this case (58:13/58:12) and another "big-3" case (8:66/8:65). The latter I am more comfortable with, and that leaves the former case as the critical one, which was also the only case Burton conceded as a possible abrogation case. With this introduction, here is a (new?) angle on this case.

The basic premise of the abrogation doctrine is that a verse in the Quran is no longer valid by virtue of a (chronologically) later, contradictory verse. All our anti-abrogation arguments postulate that such a verse is in fact valid and that there is no real contradiction. Among the arguments that we used to support our anti-abrogation approach in general is that no verse in the Quran that is left to us by the Prophet (PBUH) can be invalid.

Now let us take the case of a verse that applies only at the time of the Prophet, e.g., the command for people not to call for the Prophet shouting from outside. This verse is clearly not applicable (in the sense that the command therein does not obligate us to do anything), but it is not invalid. In other words, it is conditioned upon something that is not currently present (the Prophet being alive) but so are many other verses such as commands to husbands in the context of divorce being not applicable to someone who is not married (that being a changeable condition where as the Prophet not being alive is a permanent condition).

The question I am presenting here is the following. Could a verse that is no longer applicable be "abrogated" by another verse? I am putting quotation here since the abrogation is academic for us, as the verse is not applicable anyway. Let us examine this question.

There is no question that there are commands that were valid at one point, then became invalid at a later point during the life of the Prophet (what we coined the dynamic phase). Visiting the graves is an example, the requirement of 50 prayers is another (although very short-lived and never applied). Those cases (1) do not raise any problem since the abrogated command is not left hanging in the Quran, and (2) are useful in terms of giving a lesson (the 50 prayers case) or setting a principle (the graves case where special rules for new converts can be set to avoid traps that come from their old habits).

Therefore, what if this also happened in verses in the Quran that are no longer applicable? The main dilemma we have in abrogation does not apply in this case. Whether or not the verse is abrogated, it is not applicable, so its role is only giving a lesson or setting a principle. At this point, I find it conceivable that 58:12 was indeed abrogated by 58:13, since both would be inapplicable at the time where the abrogation dilemma arose, namely after the death of the Prophet.

This raises the question about the wisdom of having a single abrogated verse left in the Quran. There is no dilemma in having abrogated verses in previous books (which is our thesis about what 2:106 means). The dilemma was that the Quran is wholly valid, but in this case it is still wholly valid whether 58:12 is abrogated or not since the only role it plays is historical, not as an executable command.

This is a pretty drastic departure from the line we followed so far, and may make the conclusion not as neat as it otherwise would be. Of course I am not sure about it and I may change my views. What makes me think that this explanation may be valid is not the verses themselves, but the narration about Ali (RA). It is not possible (or at least highly labored) to dismiss the abrogation claim without raising authenticity issues about these narrations. This is probably 50% of the reason why this case is difficult to refute as an instance of abrogation.

_________________
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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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, 09:59

All times are UTC

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