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.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2010, 13:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, discusses this claim at great length in pages 80-91. Of particular interest is this narration from Ibn Abbaas,

حدثنا عبد الله بن صالح عن معاوية بن صالح عن علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس، في قوله "ولا تنكحوا المشركات حتى يؤمن" قال: ثم استثنى أهل الكتاب فقال "والمحصنات من الذين أوتوا الكتاب من قبلكم إذا آتيتموهن أجورهن" اهـ

Brief translation: Ibn Abbaas was asked about 2:221, he said God then excluded the People of the Book when He said "And the chaste women of the people of the Book..." (5:5)

Ibn Salaam's comment was that Ibn Abbaas saw that the abrogating is 5:5. He equated exception with abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 15:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In refuting this claim, Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 101-107 (items 828-833) mentions that Huzhayfa ibn Al-Yamaan (RA) married a Jewish woman and Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) got angry and wrote to him to "let her go"! Huzhayfa wrote back asking, "Are you saying she is not lawful for me, so I must let her go?" Umar replied, "I do not claim she is unlawful, but I fear that Muslims may start marrying their prostitutes." Dr. Zayd points out that what Umar was afraid of was that, because Huzhayfa was a role model, that ordinary Muslims may forsake Muslim women.

Dr. Zayd also brings to notice the fact that Ibn Abbaas and Ar-Rabee` used the word "exempted" when they narrated this claim. He also says that the Hanafis mean exemption when they talk about partial abrogation.

And it is that, exemption, which is the basis for Dr. Zayd's rejection of this claim. He disagrees with At-Tabari's argument that it is a case of a generality specified, because, he says, there are no words that lead to that conclusion in 5:5. Rather, the words of 5:5 make it "almost clear" that a new ruling is made, but it doesn't rise up to the level of abrogation.

That sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? I think that he's referring o the words اليوم أحل لكم (Today, it is made lawful for you). We already addressed this in an earlier post. The fact that the first item declared allowed after that phrase is "the good things", is proof that the phrase does not mean this is a new ruling, since good things were never disallowed before this verse!

So, what is it, if it's not a new ruling? It's a final articulation of the same ruling that has always been: None of what God has allowed before is disallowed and none of what God disallowed before is allowed.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 17:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Huzhayfa ibn Al-Yamaan (RA) married a Jewish woman and Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) got angry and wrote to him to "let her go"! Huzhayfa wrote back asking, "Are you saying she is not lawful for me, so I must let her go?" Umar replied, "I do not claim she is unlawful, but I fear that Muslims may start marrying their prostitutes."

(emphasis added) Is this a typo?

Quote:
the words اليوم أحل لكم (Today, it is made lawful for you)

It seems that "اليوم" is used to mean "With this religion"

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 22:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Huzhayfa ibn Al-Yamaan (RA) married a Jewish woman and Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) got angry and wrote to him to "let her go"! Huzhayfa wrote back asking, "Are you saying she is not lawful for me, so I must let her go?" Umar replied, "I do not claim she is unlawful, but I fear that Muslims may start marrying their prostitutes."

(emphasis added) Is this a typo?

No, but he meant from the people of the Book. I don't know why he used that word مومسات, if he actually did. Verse 5:5 makes it clear that only chaste women from the people of the Book are eligible.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2011, 05:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The case for abrogation equates the people of the Book with the polytheists and that is incorrect. God has repeatedly distinguished the people of the Book from the polytheists, even when He called them disbelievers, for instance: 98:1.

As clear as that evidence is, most exegetes, according to Ibn Salaama in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 37, have bundled people of the Book with the polytheists.

He also says that Abdullah ibn Umar said something strange: that it was 5:5 that was abrogated, but 2:221 was not. How can one of the last verses revealed be abrogated?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Consequences
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 04:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Against:
M. Rasheed Ridha and Mahmood Shaltoot (implied; both forbade marrying non-Muslims),

Actually, what Imaam Ridha said, according to Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 99, was that if the Christian or Jewish woman is of such stature or effect that her Muslim husband would follow her, then such marriage is not allowed.

Indeed, that is the contingency implied in the allowance. A Muslim man is expected to influence his wife and children, but if he is weak or easily seduced, his marriage to a non-Muslim is going to weaken his faith.

Al-Jabri ruled that marriage of a Muslim man to a non-Muslim woman is prohibited. He sees the following harmful effects of such marriage:
  • The schism in views between husband and wife will demolish tranquility in their home.
  • Children are influenced more by their mothers during their early years, in which their feelings and tradition are established. A Muslim child cannot get those feelings and tradition from a woman who does not share them.
  • A non-Muslim wife cannot inherit from her Muslim husband. This means that she has no financial security after his death, so how can she be careful with his money? And he cannot bequeath to her either.

With all due respect to Al-Jabri, I disagree with those consequences and with his prohibition of marriage to women of the people of the Book. I do agree, however, with Ridha and Shaltoot's rulings.

The first two points are moot if the husband is a role model to his wife and children, as he is expected to be in Islam. The last point is not in consensus, especially the bequest part. And a Muslim husband can give as a gift to his non-Muslim wife during his life a trust, insurance policy or the like, to make this concern go away.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consequences
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2011, 05:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • A non-Muslim wife cannot inherit from her Muslim husband. This means that she has no financial security after his death, so how can she be careful with his money? And he cannot bequeath to her either.
(emphasis added)

Says who?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consequences
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2011, 07:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
  • A non-Muslim wife cannot inherit from her Muslim husband. This means that she has no financial security after his death, so how can she be careful with his money? And he cannot bequeath to her either.
(emphasis added)

Says who?

Al-Jabri does, not me :) Indeed, there is no basis for excluding anyone from bequests.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2011, 02:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The case for abrogation equates the people of the Book with the polytheists and that is incorrect.

Listening to Chapter 5 recently, I was paused about this verse,

It seems to support the cause for this abrogation claim! Yet, to my knowledge no one used that argument to argue for this abrogation claim!

Is it a valid argument? No, IMHO. Because, 5:72 equates a segment of Christians with polytheists: Those who actually believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, is God. Not all Christians believe that. In fact, many Christians do not believe that Jesus had any sort of divine nature.

It follows then, that Muslims cannot marry Christians singled out in 5:72. For other segments of Christians, 2:221 does not describe them. Those are people of the Book and 5:5 applies to them.

Another verse that confirms 5:72 is

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:5 abrogate 2:221?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 13:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his presentation book of Abu-Abdillah Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 73, reports two refutation arguments against this claim:

  • 5:5 is specifying the generality of 2:221.

    I respectfully disagree that this is a case of specification because people of the book are not polytheist.

  • Chapter 5 was revealed near the end while Chapter 2 was revealed in the beginning of the Medina period, so "how can a former abrogate a latter?"

    Indeed how. Unfortunately, he does not stick by that rule! He approved the abrogation case of 2:234/2:240 for which he claimed, without providing any evidence, that 2:234 was revealed after 2:240! As for the abrogation case of 33:50/33:52, he does not comment.

    Dr. Faaris confirms Shu`la's observation that later verses cannot be abrogated by earlier ones, by quoting An-Nahhaas who said the same thing. Yet, Dr. Faaris does not stand by that standard himself as he comments on 2:234/2:240. He only repeats what the others have said.

_________________
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.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 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, 10:12

All times are UTC

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