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: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2010, 08:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Az-Zalmi is adamant that these two verses do not apply only to the Prophet (PBUH), refuting the argument of Al-Asfahaani who rejects the claim on the basis of temporary situation that has ended, i.e., sifting through the hypocrites as mentioned earlier.

Al-Ghali also talks about this when he discusses this abrogation claim on pages 171-176 of his book. Basically, Al-Asfahani's opinion (as reported by the author) is that "it is abrogation, but it's OK." The poorest argument from Al-Asfahani that I read so far, so I can see why Al-Zalmi was not happy about it. Other highlights from Al-Ghali's discussion:

  • He supports the argument that 58:12 does not institute a requirement by arguing that the part of the verse that says "this is better for you and more pure" suggests that what is being asked is not a requirement. He also considers the continuation in 58:13 with أأشفقتم as further evidence that it was not a requirement.

  • He notes that abrogation scholars have always argued that abrogation takes place when the circumstances change, warranting a corresponding change in the ruling. He then argues that in this case there was no change in the circumstances, and if there is abrogation it would be too close to "change of mind" God forbid.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 17:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Burton attests to the historical importance of this claim to the 'proof' of the abrogation doctrine. He discusses the case on pages 189-190 of his book. Here are the highlights.
...
5. He emphasizes that the directive in 58:12 is a very mild directive, and that the crux of both 58:12 and 58:13 is to make it a good thing to present alms before an audience with the Prophet (PBUH), and also make it abundantly clear that this can be skipped and forgiven.

This is the main argument of the scholars who rejected this abrogation claim, such as Ar-Raazi and Ash-Shawkaani. It is credible. What it means is that 58:12 suggested giving a charity before exclusively meeting with the Prophet (PBUH). It did not emphasize it. People realized it was not emphasized, so most of them did not comply with it. Then came 58:13 to reprimand those of them who were too stingy to comply, but comfort those who did not because they could not afford it.

Thus, 58:13 elaborates 58:12; those who can afford it are encouraged to offer a charity before they take up the Prophet's time, but those who cannot afford it may still meet with the Prophet (PBUH) privately without feeling awkward.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 17:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I found another Quranic example of forgiveness of a violation without removing the requirement that was violated: 9:117

Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 171-176, refutes this claim. In doing so, he enumerates the meanings of the word توبة which is mentioned in 58:13 and caused many scholars to think that 58:12 was abrogated as they thought the word meant forgiveness of a violation. Al-Ghaali says the meanings of the word are three,

  1. Regret: As in,
  2. Pardon: As in,
  3. Backing out: As in,

    where Moses, peace be upon him, backed out from asking to see God.

Al-Ghaali then argues that the apparent meaning of the word should not be skipped in favor of another without evidence. That is what the pro-abrogation scholars assumed when they assumed the word meant forgiveness of a violation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 18:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ironically, this is one of the handful times Az-Zalmi acknowledges Al-Asfahaani in his entire book, and when he does he knocks down his argument! I agree that Al-Asfahaani's argument here is poor, but the man had great arguments elsewhere which Az-Zalmi did not even bother referring to.

Now that I've read what Al-Asfahaani actually wrote, thanks to Husaam Al-Ghaali who quoted him in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 171-176, I no longer feel that his argument was poor. What he said was that hypocrites and Jews used to go to the Prophet (PBUH) for private consultations and he was courteous with all of them. That left little time for Muslims to ask the Prophet their private questions. This was the circumstance of revelation according to a narration by Zayd Ibn Aslam. Al-Hasan said the circumstance of revelation was that some Muslims took more of the Prophet's time than others who felt cheated.

The argument is still not strong, IMHO, because even though 58:12 may have succeeded in filtering out nuisance, in practice it also filtered out some legitimate Muslims. That of course is the fault of those Muslims, because the verse clearly says that the offering is the better thing to do, thus not required, and that those who cannot afford it don't have to worry about it. Despite that, many Muslims thought to err on the side of caution and stopped going to the Prophet for consultation. 58:13 came to tell them that they shouldn't do that, to tell them again that it's OK if they really cannot afford it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 18:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pardon: As in,

This one is the most pointed since the way the verb is used is of the same form used in 58:13.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2010, 06:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, page 88, rejects this abrogation claim on the basis that the imperative in 58:12 is a recommendation and not a mandate, evidenced by the epilogue of the verse, "But if you cannot find [something to donate] then God is Forgiving and Merciful."

As for 58:13, Dr. Jum`a says it offers a choice of charity.

I respectfully disagree with the reasoning, but agree with the conclusion. Verse 58:12 is indeed a recommendation, but the evidence is "That is better for you and purer." The epilogue does not imply a recommendation but a relief for those who cannot afford to give a charity but still have a legitimate need to consult with the Prophet (PBUH) privately. In other words, the language of the epilogue implies that the command does not apply to all, only to those who can afford it.

As for 58:13, it does not have language that suggests charity is an option for those who can afford it. All it says is that for those who were concerned or felt awkward about giving the charity have been forgiven their interpretation and apprehension. The epilogue of that verse confirms that the motives of those who give and those who don't are well known to God. Those who gave and afforded it, such as Ali, may God have been pleased with him, will be rewarded. Those who did not give, even though they could afford to, are hypocrites and their waste of the Prophet's time (PBUH) has been stopped! Those who did not give because they could not afford it now know that not only do they not have to donate, but that they should not feel ashamed that they didn't either. God knows their situation well, and their commitment to prayer, alms, and obedience to God and His Messenger is all they need and it will be rewarded.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 09:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the reasoning, but agree with the conclusion.

I agree with your disagreement and with your agreement. :D

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2010, 22:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

Nowhere! 58:13 does not annul the imperative in 58:12. It simply says that for those who elect not to offer the charity that they had better establish the prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His Messenger!

I say "elect" because those who cannot afford it have been excused in 58:12. That leaves people who can afford it but choose not to.

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.

Exactly! I was listening to Chapter 58 this afternoon and noticed immediately that the preceding verse, 58:11, is teaching Muslims etiquette.

Part of that etiquette is to leave when asked to leave. Now, one gets the picture of people who imposed themselves on the Prophet (PBUH) who may not even have had important questions to ask him. That's the context of revealing 58:12-13. It filtered out those time wasters. Like I said earlier, it also stopped some people with legitimate questions, so 58:13 came to assure them that they can go ahead and see the Prophet (PBUH) privately for their concerns and they don't have to offer a charity if they can't afford it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2010, 05:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
58:13 does not annul the imperative in 58:12. It simply says that for those who elect not to offer the charity that they had better establish the prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His Messenger!

I say "elect" because those who cannot afford it have been excused in 58:12. That leaves people who can afford it but choose not to.

I misunderstood what you wrote here on first reading and the result is a a new angle :). It is possible that 58:13 is exclusively addressing those who cannot afford to give charity. Two reasons:

1. One meaning of أشفقتم is having hardship in doing something.

2. The wording of 58:12 about them says that God is forgiving غفور which is consistent with تاب الله عليكم in 58:13.

Under this interpretation, 58:13 is instituting a requirement on them (prayers and alms) as a replacement for giving charity (similar to feeding a poor person when you can't fast).

Of course prayers and alms are already required of all Muslims, but maybe the effect here is psychological to make those who cannot afford charity feel less bad about their failure to give charity when they need to consult the Prophet (PBUH).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2010, 13:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, pages 707-708, reports a narration by Ali ibn `Alqama that Ali ibn Abi-Taalib, may God have been pleased with him, said that people had been asking the Prophet, peace be upon him, too many questions. Then 58:12 was revealed and the questions stopped completely! He, Ali had a question and he had a Dirham (1/10th of a Dinar) and he offered it as charity and asked the Prophet (PBUH). Then 58:13 was revealed.

If that narration is authentic, then we learn from it a few things,
  • That 58:12 was revealed for a specific purpose: stop wasting the Prophet's time!
  • That 58:12 achieved its purpose! Thus, it cannot be abrogated. It would have been abrogated if it it did not achieve its purpose but God rescinded it anyway.
  • That 58:13 was revealed to chastise Muslims whose concern about offering charity is what stopped them from asking the Prophet questions. That, to me, is the most important lesson from 58:13. People who asked frivolous questions could not be stopped without a financial burden. The Prophet (PBUH) was simply too nice to turn anybody down. Such people are the first of four groups addressed by 58:12-13: People who had questions, could afford charity but would not give it.

    Those who had legitimate questions were three groups:
    1. People who could afford a charity, gave it and asked their question, such as Ali.
    2. People who did not have pressing questions, could not afford a charity, so they did not ask and did not give.
    3. People whose questions were pressing, could not afford charity, but were so pious they did not think they were exempt form it, so they did not ask.

_________________
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.  [ 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 32 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, 08:22

All times are UTC

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