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.  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Consequences
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2011, 06:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 63, rejects this claim and agrees with Al-Asfahaani's interpretation. He also sees a noble teaching in 4:33 in that it expands the circle of beneficiaries of an estate to the wife! In the pre-Islam era, the Arabs deprived their wives and in-laws from their estates.

He sees the nobility of this teaching in the following consequences of rejecting this claim and keeping 4:33 valid:
  1. Wives receiving inheritance is an acknowledgment of their equal rights and value in society, after they have been passed as inheritance themselves before Islam!
  2. Passing an estate from husband's family to wife's family teaches Muslims that wealth is transitory and is not to be monopolized by a tribe or family line.

On pages 68-71 he repeats his rejection of the claim as it pertains to allies and servants. He points out that accepting that 4:33 was not abrogated has a number of noble consequences:

  1. Widening the circle of beneficiaries. That helps in wealth distribution in a natural way, as opposed to socialism.
  2. Putting one's money where one's mouth is! Allies and servants can trust that promises made to them of bequests are honored.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:6 (or 8:75) abrogate 4:33?
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2013, 18:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 126, gives very little space to the discussion of this claim and does not weigh in on it.

And his book verifier, Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in the footnotes, refers the reader to 9 different books, including his own Master's thesis, yet he does not tell us his conclusion!

Obviously, neither of the two knows what to make of this claim. Now, here is the dilemma: A judge is asked to resolve a legal dispute levied by a man who has been promised something in the will of his friend who died. The official heirs are contesting this man's claim based on this abrogation claim. Should the judge rule for the claimant, meaning he rejects this abrogation claim, or should he rule for the defendants, meaning he approves of this abrogation claim?

People's rights are at stake when the abrogation doctrine is adopted.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 33:6 (or 8:75) abrogate 4:33?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 62, offers a simple explanation that dismisses this claim. He says that what 33:6 and 8:74 refer to is الموالي (relatives), while 4:33 refers to مولى الموالاة (sponsored convert). He says that "give them their share" means give them what was promised them of friendship and support.

_________________
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.  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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, 15:32

All times are UTC

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