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  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 2:234 (or 4:12) abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 21:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Many scholars have concluded that the ruling about widows, their domicile and inheritance as stated in 2:234 has abrogated the ruling in 2:240. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


I don't rightly see mandates or prohibitions in either verse. God uses the same word in both verses: لاجناح عليكم "there is no violation on your part". Clearly God is giving widows options. That is what Imaam Ibn Taymiya, may God have been pleased with him, has concluded that the two verses are to be taken together as choices for the widow: If she so chooses, she can stay at her late husband's house for a year and be supported from his will. But if she chooses to leave the house after her `idda (four months and ten days, or giving birth whichever happens first) then she can and is entitled to her inheritance.

It is particularly strange to say that a verse that appears first in the chapter has abrogated one that appears later.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 05:57 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
This is one of the main cases used as an example of abrogation. Since I disagree with the prevailing opinion, I will start with a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: If my opinion goes against the opinion of a respected scholar (and respected colleagues), it does not mean that I think I am more knowledgeable, nor that I disrespect them. It only means that my current opinion is different from their opinion in this particular instance for the reasons I state. I may well be wrong, and I am willing to be convinced of that.

I do not believe that there is a case that verse 2:240 abrogated verse 2:234. In verse 2:234, the wording of what the widows would do is "...lie in wait by themselves for 4 months and 10 days..." There is nothing that the verse says about where to "lie in wait by themselves." It is completely reasonable to understand this as being about not getting married within the 4 months and 10 days. More importantly for our discussion, it is completely reasonable to conclude that the verse, in and of itself, does not specify where the widow must reside.

Now to verse 2:240. The verse prescribes an obligation to make provisions to support your widow for one year and not force her out of the household during this period. If she chooses to leave the household before the year is up, you are not to blame for that. Not only does this verse address support and residence whereas the first verse does not explicitly do so, but in addition the first verse prescribes an obligation on the widow while the second verse prescribes an obligation on the man (or the man's estate).

I respectfully conclude that there is no abrogation here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 14:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Excellent points. When I first read about this case, I thought it was about 2:240 abrogating 2:234, but it is about the other way around. That is what caught my eye first: that a latter verse is abrogated by a former one! In the entire history of revelation, only a handful of verses were inserted, rather than appended, to chapters. I don't recall ever reading that 2:234 was one of the inserted ones.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 18:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
The majority, including Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Ad-Dhahhaak, Ibn Zayd, `Ataa' and As-Suddi,
Ar-Rabee`, An-Nakh`i, Al-Hasan, `Ataa' and Ikrima (according to At-Tabari, writes Dr. Zayd),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi, Al-Manssor Billah, Al-Haakim (according to Aş-Şa`di),
An-Nahhaas,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Makki (who was puzzled by the claim that 2:240 preceded 2:234 in revalation but accepted that, per Dr. Faaris),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Hibatullah ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi (in one report),
An-Nasfi,
Al-Qurtubi (implied),
At-Tabari (implied),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani,
As-Suyooti,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi and Dr. Hilmi Abdul-Haadi (according to Haani Taahir),
Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs (Egypt),
M. M. Farghali.

Against:
Ali,
Mujaahid ibn Jabr,
Al-Bukhaari,
Ibn Taymiya,
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Ahmad ibn Al-Husayn ibn Haaroon aka Al-Mu'ayyad Billah (implied, according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ar-Raazi (in another report according to Al-Areedh),
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi and Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood (according to Haani Taahir),
Az-Zurqaani,
Muhammad Abduh and M. Rasheed Ridha,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Muhammad Abu-Zahra,
Sayyid Qutb,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Ash-Sha`raawi,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
M. M. Nada,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Haani Taahir,
Jamaal `Ataaya,
Dr. Mannaa` Al-Qattaan (implied),
Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy,
Professor Ali Hasaballah.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 06:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Tantaawi adds this argument to refute the abrogation claim of 2:240,

نماذج من الآيات التي يقول الفقهاء أنها منسوخة:
النموذج الأول:
قال تعالى: "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا وصية لأزواجهم متاعا إلى الحول غير إخراج فإن خرجن فلا جناح عليكم فيما فعلن في أنفسهن" إلى قوله تعالى "من معروف والله عزيز حكيم. للمطلقات متاع بالمعروف حقا على المتقين". فهم الفقهاء من هذه الآية أنها نزلت في عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها، وقالوا إن هذه الآية تقول بأن من يموت زوجها تمكث فترة عدة لمدة سنة، هذا فهم العلماء للآية. ثم قالوا إن هذه الآية قد تم نسخها، أي أن الله نسخ عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها من سنة كاملة إلى أربعة أشهر وعشرة أيام، واستدلوا على ذلك بقوله تعالى:
"والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا يتربصن بأنفسهن أربعة أشهر وعشرا فإن بلغن أجلهن فلا جناح عليكم فيما فعلن في أنفسهن بالمعروف والله بما تعملون خبير". فقال العلماء أن هذه الآية نسخت الآية التي قبلها فجعلت عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها أربعة أشهر وعشرا بدلا من سنة.
وهنا أناشد ذوي العقول والأفهام وأناشد أهل اللغة العربية أن يقرؤوا الآية الأولي ويروا هل هذه الآية تقول بأن عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها سنة أم أن الآية تنص على شأن آخر غير العدة. وهاهي الآية نعيد ذكرها مرة ثانية بنصها الكامل:
قال تعالى: "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا وصية لأزواجهم متاعا إلى الحول غير إخراج فإن خرجن فلا جناح عليكم فيما فعلن في أنفسهن من معروف والله عزيز حكيم".
هذه الآية لا يمكن أن يفهم منها غير الآتي:
تنص الآية على أن الزوج يجب أن يوصي لزوجته قبل أن يتوفى بمتعة لمدة سنة، أي إلى أن يحول على وفاة الزوج حولا كاملا، ولا يحق لأحد أن يخرج زوجة المتوفى عنها زوجها من بيتها لمد سنة، إلا إذا أرادت هي الخروج للزواج بعد انقضاء العدة التي هي أربعة أشهر وعشرا، أو أرادت الخروج هي لأي شان آخر. وتسمى هذه بمتعة المتوفى عنها زوجها، هذا هو ما نصت عليه الآية وهذه المتعة لا تعطى للمرأة ولا يعمل بها في محاكم الأحوال الشخصية، ولا يفعلها الأزواج قبل موتهم، ولو قرأنا الآية التالية لآية المتوفى عنها زوجها مباشرة لوجدناها أيضا تتعلق بمتعة المرأة بعد الطلاق وهي معطوفة على الآية التي قبلها، وهاهو نص الآية التي بعدها مباشرة:
قال تعالى: "وللمطلقات متاع بالمعروف حقا على المتقين". فكما أن للمتوفى عنها زوجها متاع لمدة سنة كذلك للمطلقة متاع بالمعروف حقا على المتقين.
أرأينا أن الآيتين ليس فيهما ناسخ ولا منسوخ، وأن الآية الأولى تنص على أن عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها أن تتربص بنفسها أربعة أشهر وعشرا، وأن الآية الأخرى تنص على الوصية بمتاع للزوجة المتوفى عنها زوجها لمدة سنة. فلله الأمر من قبل ومن بعد


He observes that the two verses address different things: 2:240 is about a will or provision (Mataa`) for the widow and 2:234 is about the grace period for the widow. He points to 2:241 as affirming the understanding of a "provision" for the divorcée too.

He also tells us that the will specified in 2:240 is not complied with by husbands or considered by courts! I get the vibe that he is irritated by this injustice. Indeed, claims of abrogation can potentially deprive people of their rights or cause them unjustified harm. This is why I continue to believe that discussing the abrogation issue is of paramount importance.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 07:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
... وهنا أناشد ذوي العقول والأفهام وأناشد أهل اللغة العربية أن يقرؤوا الآية ...

Translation: "... and here I plead to those who have brains and comprehension, and I plead to the people of the Arabic language, to read the verse ..."

I just got a kick out of this. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 07:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
I just read in Dr. Khidr Nabha's thesis, "Tafseer Al-Asfahaani" that Al-Asfahaani pointed out that 2:234 was revealed before 2:240, so it cannot possibly abrogate it, which is what I noticed right away.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 07:28 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I just read in Dr. Khidr Nabha's thesis, "Tafseer Al-Asfahaani" that Al-Asfahaani pointed out that 2:234 was revealed before 2:240, so it cannot possibly abrogate it, which is what I noticed right away.

I wonder why the pro-abrogation scholars didn't argue this abrogation case the other way around then? Also, Al-Asfahaani predates a lot of pro-abrogation scholars, so why didn't they take the chronological remark he made into consideration or challenge it if they thought it wasn't correct?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2010, 06:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abul-Fakhr Ar-Raazi, who usually agreed with Al-Asfahaani, wrote this in his exegesis, "At-Tafseer Al-Kabeer",

الحجة الثانية للقائلين بوقوع النسخ في القرآن: أن الله تعالى أمر المتوفى عنها زوجها بالاعتداد حولا كاملا، وذلك في قوله: "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا وصية لأزواجهم متاعا إلى الحول" (البقرة: 240) ثم نسخ ذلك بأربعة أشهر وعشر كما قال: "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا يتربصن بأنفسهن أربعة أشهر وعشرا" (البقرة: 234) قال أبو مسلم: الاعتداد بالحول ما زال بالكلية؛ لأنها لو كانت حاملا ومدة حملها حول كامل لكانت عدتها حولا كاملا، وإذا بقي هذا الحكم في بعض الصور كان ذلك تخصيصا لا ناسخا، والجواب: أن مدة عدة الحمل تنقضي بوضع الحمل، سواء حصل وضع الحمل بسنة أو أقل أو أكثر، فجعل السنة العدة يكون زائلا بالكلية


He quotes Al-Asfahaani's refutation and shows it's weak. Al-Asfahaani said that the year grace period is still valid for a pregnant woman who has a year till she gives birth. Ar-Raazi counters that by saying, her grace period is as soon as she gives birth. Thus the ruling in 2:234 is abrogating.

I agree that Al-Asfahaani's reasoning was wanting.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 05 Feb 2010, 06:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He quotes Al-Asfahaani's refutation and shows it's weak. Al-Asfahaani said that the year grace period is still valid for a pregnant woman who has a year till she gives birth. Ar-Raazi counters that by saying, her grace period is as soon as she gives birth. Thus the ruling in 2:234 is abrogating.
I agree that Al-Asfahaani's reasoning was wanting.

I really want to understand why something that obvious to me is not even mentioned in discussing this abrogation case. There is no contradiction between the two rulings at all. Here is my point, again.

2:234 obligates the widow to wait for 4 months and 10 days.

2:240 does not obligate the widow to do ANYTHING AT ALL. It only obligates the husband's estate to provide a year's residence to the widow, which she may leave on day 1 if she so chooses.

Where am I wrong in this?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 16 Sep 2019, 12:04

All times are UTC

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