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





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 15:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This case concerns what the prophet, peace be upon him, should do when non-Muslims ask him to settle their disputes.


is claimed to have been abrogated by


To begin with, the discussion is academic, since these verses address the prophet, thus it has no bearing on the rest of us, unless it is believed that the ruling of these two verses is extrapolated to us, the prophet's heirs so to speak when we are faced with the same situation. So, let's consider that.

5:42 gives the prophet two options while 5:49 seems to give him only one. I don't see it that way. I see 5:49 as elaborating on the first option: if the prophet decides to go ahead and judge. In 5:42, God says that if the prophet chooses to judge, he must judge with equity, for God loves the equitable. What is equity? How does one define it? Is it a matter of opinion? Is it according to Islamic law? Is it according to Jewish law? (5:42 was about Jews consulting the prophet). That's what 5:49 explains. It says that equity is achieved by what God has sent down, not by people's whims. The next sentence in 5:49 alerts the prophet that the disputers will try to keep him form applying Islamic law to them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2010, 10:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I see 5:49 as elaborating on the first option: if the prophet decides to go ahead and judge. In 5:42, God says that if the prophet chooses to judge, he must judge with equity, for God loves the equitable. What is equity? How does one define it? Is it a matter of opinion? Is it according to Islamic law? Is it according to Jewish law? (5:42 was about Jews consulting the prophet). That's what 5:49 explains. It says that equity is achieved by what God has sent down, not by people's whims. The next sentence in 5:49 alerts the prophet that the disputers will try to keep him form applying Islamic law to them.

Totally agree.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 17:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Ikrima, As-Suddi,
Ataa' (ibn Abi Rabaah?) (according to one report),
`Ataa' Al-Khuraasaani (according to Ibn Salaam, and it's possibly the same `Ataa' above),
Qataada (in one report),
Al-Hasan (according to As-Suyooti, wrote Al-Jabri and according to At-Tabari, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Mujaahid (according to Dr. Zayd),
Az-Zuhri (in one report), Umar ibn Abd-il-Azeez,
Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Ibn Katheer, wrote Al-Jabri),
Sa`eed (ibn Al-Musaayib?, according to Ibn Salaama),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
An-Nahhaas (implied by Ibn Al-Jawzi),
Abu-Huzhayfa, Ash-Shafii (in one report), Abu-Haneefa's fellows,
The Koofi jurists,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Aş-Şa`di (implied),
As-Suyooti.

Against:
Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah (according to another report, confirmed by Dr. Zayd),
Ibrahim (An-Nakh`i), Ash-Sha`bi,
Saeed ibn Jabeer,
Qataada (in another report, according to Dr. Zayd),
`Aa'isha, Al-Hasan and Abu-Maysara `Amr ibn Shurahbeel (they all said that nothing in Chapter 5 was abrogated),
Al-Hasan And Az-Zuhri (in other reports, according to Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Thawr,
Abu-Bakr Al-Aşamm,
Abu-Haneefa,
Maalik,
Ash-Shaafi`i (in another report where he differentiates between Zhimmis أهل الذمة and the covenanted أهل العهد),
Ahmad ibn Hanbal (according to Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari,
Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Az-Zurqaani (in his book مناهل العرفان, volume 2, page 256),
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 23:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about this case in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan,"

ذكر الآية السادسة: قوله تعالى "فإن جاؤوك فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم" الآية. اختلفوا على قولين:

الأول أنها منسوخة، وذلك أن أهل الكتاب كانوا إذا ترافعوا إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان مخيرا إن شاء حكم بينهم وإن شاء أعرض عنهم، ثم نسخ ذلك بقوله "فاحكم بينهم بما أنزل الله"، فلزمه الحكم وزال التخيير. روى هذا المعنى أبو سليمان الدمشقي بأسانيده عن ابن عباس وعطاء ومجاهد وعكرمة والسدي، وقد روى أيضا عن الزهري وعمر بن عبد العزيز، وقد أخبرنا أبن الحصين قال أبنا أبو طالب ابن غيلان قال أبنا أبو بكر الشافعي قال بنا يحيى بن آدم عن الأشجعي عن سفيان عن السدي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم" نسختها "فاحكم بينهم بما أنزل الله". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال بنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما في قوله "فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم"، قال نسختها "فاحكم بينهم بما أنزل الله"، قال أحمد وبنا هشيم قال بنا أصحابنا منهم منصور وغيره عن الحكم عن مجاهد في قوله "فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم"، قال أحمد وبنا وكيع قال بنا سفيان عن السدي عن عكرمة قال نسخ قوله "فاحكم بينهم" قوله "فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم". قال أحمد وبنا حسين عن شيبان عن قتادة "فاحكم بينهم بما أنزل الله"، قال أمر الله نبيه أن يحكم بينهم بعدما كان رخص له أن يعرض عنهم إن شاء فنسخت هذه الآية ما كان قبلها. وحكى أبو جعفر النحاس عن أبي حذيفة وأصحابه قالوا إذا تحاكم أهل الكتاب إلى الإمام فليس له يعرض عنهم، غير أن أبا حنيفة قال إذا جاءت امرأة والزوج فعليه أن يحكم بينهما بالعدل، وإن جاءت المرأة وحدها ولم يرض الزوج لم يحكم، وقال أصحابه بل يحكم. قال وقال الشافعي لا خيار للإمام إذا تحاكموا إليه. قال النحاس وقد ثبت أن قول أكثر العلماء ان الآية منسوخة.

والقول الثاني انها محكمة وأن الإمام ونوابه في الحكم مخيرون وإذا توافعوا إليهم إن شاؤا حكموا بينهم وإن شاؤا أعرضوا عنهم. أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد 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 هشيم قال أبنا مغيرة عن إبراهيم والشعبي في قوله "فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم"، قالا إذا ارتفع أهل الكتاب إلى حاكم المسلمين فإن شاء أن يحكم بينهم وإن شاء أن يعرض عنهم، وإن حكم حكم بما في كتاب الله. قال أحمد وبنا وكيع عن سفيان عن ابن جريح عن عطاء قال إن شاء حكم وإن شاء لم يحكم. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا إبراهيم بن عمر البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا المثنى بن أحمد قال بنا عمرو بن خالد عن ابن لهيعة عن عطاء بن دينار عن سعيد بن جبير "فإن جاؤوك فاحكم بينهم أو أعرض عنهم" جعله الله في ذلك على الخيرة إما يحكم وإما أن يتركهم فلا يحكم بينهم. قال أبو بكر وبنا عبد الله بن محمد بن خلاد قال بنا يزيد قال بنا مبارك عن الحسن قال إذا ارتفع أهل الذمة إلى حاكم من حكام المسلمين فإن شاء حكم بينهم حكم بينهم وإن شاء رفعهم الى حكامهم، فإن حكم بينهم حكم بالعدل وبما أنزل الله وهذا لأنه لا تنافي بين الآيتين من جهة أن أحدهما خيرت بين الحكم وتركه والأخرى ثبتت كيفية الحكم إذا كان

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 84-85, rejects this claim with the same reasoning given above: that once the choice is made to judge, the judgment must be by Islamic law. He adds an opinion that has been offered by scholars, which further strengthens the anti-abrogation argument, that the choice spoken about in 5:42 applies to أهل العهد (people of a treaty), not أهل الذمة (non-Muslims under protection of Muslim rulers). The opinion says that judging between non-Muslim constituents in Muslim countries must be by Islamic law, because it is the law of the land.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 09:40 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The opinion says that judging between non-Muslim constituents in Muslim countries must be by Islamic law, because it is the law of the land.

I could not find the verse that instructs us to judge between people in the book according to their own religion (in matters of marriage, inheritance, etc.). I tried key words to no avail, but I vividly recall that there was such a verse.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 14:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I could not find the verse that instructs us to judge between people in the book according to their own religion (in matters of marriage, inheritance, etc.). I tried key words to no avail, but I vividly recall that there was such a verse.

Perhaps you were thinking of this verse?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2010, 21:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Perhaps you were thinking of this verse?

Actually, I seem to be thinking of a non-existing verse that has the sentence "فاحكم بينهم بما يدينون". I may be confused with a reference other than the Quran. Good thing I was not among the first Muslims, or this could have become an example of abrogation of recitation. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2010, 23:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 115-117, reports the narration of Ibrahim An-Nakh`i and `Aamir ibn Shuraheel Ash-Sha`bi in which they correctly understood how these two verses together make up one ruling. They both said (my translation),

An-Nakh`i and Ash-Sha`bi wrote:
So, when the People of the Book levy a matter to Muslim rulers, the ruler may judge between them if he wills, or he may decline if he wills, but if he judges between them he must judge by what's in the Book of God, may He be Mighty and Prominent.

Yet, Ibn Salaam mentions this narration as evidence for abrogation! Clearly, he understood naskh in its general meaning of amendment, not its restrictive meaning of abrogation.

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa uses the same argument in his refutation of the claim, on page 53 of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه. He says 5:49 completes 5:42. Completion of a ruling is naskh, but it is not abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:49 abrogate 5:42?
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010, 14:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya brings up an interesting point about this claim, which he refutes in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 408-409. He answers the question: When, or why, would the Prophet (PBUH) choose not to judge between people of the Book?

His answer is that the Prophet (PBUH) may realize that the litigants are not serious about seeking his arbitration and will be wasting his time. `Ataaya cites the next verse as clue to why he may turn down their appeal,

But if he feels that they are serious and have agreed to accept his judgment, then he may judge between them and that is where 5:49 comes in.

`Ataaya brings this case up as another example of what he calls the openness of text. Verse 5:42 is open and establishes that a Muslim ruler has the option to accept being arbiter between non-Muslims or turn it down. It is 5:49 that is contingent, i.e., it sets the condition of ruling only by what God has sent down: Islamic law. That is why `Ataaya sees no cause to claim abrogation. Open verses establish principles and default frameworks. That cannot be abrogated.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 07 Dec 2019, 17:04

All times are UTC

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