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  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 5:45 abrogate 2:178?
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 17:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is the case of Qisaas for murder. The two verses in contention are,


is claimed to have been abrogated by

Ibn Al-Jawzi discusses this case as follows,

ذكر الآية الثانية عشرة: قوله تعالى "يا أيها الذين آمنوا كتب عليكم القصاص في القتلى الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى". ذهب بعض المفسرين إلى أن دليل خطاب هذه الآية منسوخ لأنه لما قال "الحر بالحر" اقتضى أن لا يقتل العبد بالحر، وكذا لما قال "والأنثى بالأنثى" اقتضى أن لا يقتل الذكر بالأنثى من جهة دليل الخطاب، وذلك منسوخ بقوله تعالى "وكتبنا عليهم فيها أن النفس بالنفس". وإلى هذا أشار ابن عباس فيما رواه عثمان بن عطاء عن أبيه عن ابن عباس قال نسختها الآية التي في المائدة أن النفس بالنفس، وإلى نحو هذا ذهب سعيد بن جبير ومقاتل. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا أبو إسحق البرمكي قال أبنا أبو بكر محمد بن إسماعيل أذنا قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال أبنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال أبنا يحيى بن عبد الله بن بكير قال حدثني عبد الله بن لهيعة عن عطاء بن دينار عن سعيد بن جبير أن حيين من العرب اقتتلوا في الجاهلية قبل الإسلام بقليل فكان بينهم قتل وجراحات حتى قتلوا العبيد والنساء، فلم يأخذ بعضهم من بعض حتى أسلموا. وكان أحد الحيين يتطاولون على الآخر في العدة والأموال، فحلفوا أن لا نرضى حتى نقتل بالعبد منا الحر منهم وبالمرأة منا الرجل منهم. فنزل فيهم "الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى". فرضوا بذلك فصارت آية "الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى" منسوخة نسخها "النفس بالنفس".

قلت وهذا القول ليس بشيء لوجهين: الأول أنه إنما ذكر في آية المائدة ما كتبه على أهل التوراة وذلك لا يلزمنا، وإنما نقول في إحدى الروايتين عن أحمد إن شرع من قبلنا شرع لنا ما لم يثبت نسخه وخطابنا بعد خطابهم قد ثبت النسخ، فتلك الآية أولى أن تكون منسوخة بهذه من هذه بتلك. والثاني أن دليل الخطاب عند الفقهاء حجة ما لم يعارضه دليل أقوى منه، وقد ثبت بلفظ الآية أن الحر يوازي الحر فلأن الحر يوازي العبد أولى ثم إن أول الآية يعم وهو قوله "كتب عليكم القصاص" وإنما الآية نزلت فيمن كان يقتل حرا بعبد وذكرا بأنثى فأمروا بالنظر في التكافؤ. أخبرنا أبو بكر محمد بن عبد الله بن حبيب قال أبنا علي بن الفضل قال أبنا محمد ابن عبد الصمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد السرخسي قال أبنا إبراهيم بن حريم قال أبنا عبد الحميد قال أبنا يونس عن شيبان عن قتادة "يا أيها الذين آمنوا كتب عليكم القصاص في القتلى الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى"، قال كان أهل الجاهلية فيهم بغي وطاعة للشيطان فكان الحي منهم إذا كان فيهم عدد وعدة فقتل لهم عبد قتله عبد قوم آخرين، قالوا لن نقتل به إلا حرا تعززا وتفضلا على غيرهم في أنفسهم، وإذا قتلت لهم أنثى قتلتها امرأة قالوا لن نقتل بها إلا رجلا فأنزل الله هذه الآية يخبرهم أن الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى وينهاهم عن البغي، ثم أنزل في سورة المائدة "وكتبنا عليهم فيها أن النفس بالنفس" إلى قوله "والجروح قصاص" اهـ

Ibn Al-Jawzi, rahimahullah, refutes this case. He said that 2:178 spoke of equivalence in retaliation because some tribes would kill a free man in retaliation for the murder of a slave. What I see is that the two verses speak of two different matters! 2:178 speaks of "who" while 5:45 speaks of "what". 5:45 confirms the "an eye for an eye" ruling of the Torah. In other words, if the crime is that a man's nose was cut off, the retaliation cannot be a killing, only a nose cut off.

Ibn Al-Jawzi also says that 2:178 speaks of the Mosaic law and it's not binding on Muslims but he quotes one of two opinions of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal?) that it is until abrogation is proved. I humbly disagree because the original Torah has been edited and because the Quran abrogated the Old Testament, therefore we cannot tell which parts of it are God's commands and which are man made.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:45 abrogate 2:178?
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 19:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
It seems to me that both verses are detailing the principle of equal punishment set forth in



with 2:178 dealing with the case of killing, and 5:45 dealing with the case of injury. The opening of 5:45 with "a life for a life" just contrasts it with the lesser cases like "an eye for an eye." It does not detail the particulars of "a life for a life" like 2:178 did, so there is no contradiction.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn `Abbaas (in one report), Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and Muqaatil,
Al-Layth (according to Al-Jabri, quoting from As-Suyooti's book الإكليل, page 23),
Ali, Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i, Ibn Hanbal (implied by their ruling that a free man is not killed for a slave, but pays ransom, wrote Al-Khaazin in his exegesis, volume 1, page 125, says Al-Jabri),
Abu-Haneefa, An-Nakh`i, Ash-Shu`bi and Daawood ibn Abi-Hind Al-Qushayri (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Salaam),
Ibn Salmaan (implied by his narration of a hadeeth where the Prophet (PBUH) ordered killing a Muslim who murdered a covenanted non-Muslim),
Al-Hasan, `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah, Al-Awzaa`i, Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal (according to Shu`la),
Abu-Haneefa and his fellows (in another report),
Ath-Thawri,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Al-Jassaas,
Ibn Abi-Layla,
Daawood (Al-Qushayri?),
Ali,
Ibn Mass`ood,
Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib,
Qataada,
Ibraaheem An-Nakh`i,
Al-Hakam ibn `Uyayna,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Baydhaawi,
Al-Qurtubi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
As-Suyooti,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Sayyid Tantaawi,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

Unclear:
Al-Jabri (he is anti-abrogation, but in discussing this claim, he praises Al-Layth's ruling that a male is not killed for a female but pays ransom).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:45 or 17:33 abrogate 2:178?
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 03:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that the only abrogated part of 2:178 is والأنثى بالأنثى (and the female for a female). He does not give a reason for this statement. Here is what he wrote about this case in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن,

الآية السابعة: قوله تعالى "كتب عليكم القصاص في القتلى الحر بالحر والعبد بالعبد والأنثى بالأنثى" 178 البقرة وها هنا موضع النسخ من الآية الأنثى وباقيها محكم، وناسخها قوله تعالى "وكتبنا عليهم فيها أن النفس بالنفس" الآية 45 المائدة. وقيل ناسخها قوله في سورة بني إسرائيل "ومن قتل مظلوما فقد جعلنا لوليه سلطانا فلا يسرف في القتل" 33 مدنية الإسراء 17، وقتل الحر بالعبد إسراف وكذلك قتل المسلم بالكافر

He also reports that some have said that the abrogating verse is

Clearly 17:33 does not abrogate anything because it forbids mindless retaliation and 2:178 reiterates that as it mandates a one-to-one retaliation which is also what 5:45 says. Dr. Mustafa Zayd points that out in his refutation of this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 132-134 (item 872). He also offers a simple argument to refute this claim: Chapter 33 was revealed in Mecca, before Chapter 2 which was revealed in Medina!

Dr. Zayd also points out that the practice of the Prophet (PBUH) suggests no abrogation, since he had a freeman executed for killing a free woman. The consensus of the scholars, according to At-Tabari, in his exegesis, volume 3, pages 363-364, is that there has always been only one ruling about retaliation for murder.

The issue they were struggling with is whether a believer can be killed in retaliation for a disbeliever, a man for a woman, a freeman for a slave, etc. God doesn't say in 2:178 but He does in 5:45. The answer is yes; "a soul for a soul". In other words, 2:178 was specific for three cases only and 5:45 made clear the principle: "a soul for a soul".

This is the claim Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri rejects in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 122. His argument is that 2:178 speaks about retaliation, while 17:33 speaks about due process.

As for the claim that 2:178 was abrogated by 5:45, Al-Jabri praises Al-Layth's ruling that a male is not killed for a female but pays ransom instead. He sees that as a way to reduce bloodshed. I respectfully disagree; the choice of ransom is the murder victim's family's only, not the judge's.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:45 abrogate 2:178?
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 19:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali in his bbok بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 56-62, gives extensive coverage to this claim which he rejects. A number of additional scholars opinions he propounds are:

  • Abu-Haneefa said that the statement "Retaliation has been prescribed for you" ends there. Al-Jassaas agreed. Al-Ghaali understands from Abu-Haneefa's words that he meant that the words "a freeman for a freeman, ...etc." are examples, not the only allowed options. His proof is that the consensus is that a gang which kills an individual is killed, all of them and a hadeeth narrated by Mujaahid said that the Prophet had a Jewish man executed who killed a woman.

  • Some have said that the meaning is that ransom is the same, regardless of whether the murder victim is a freeman, a woman or a slave.

  • Al-Qurtubi said that 2:178 simply makes it clear that when a freeman kills a freeman, he is to be killed. Similarly for other categories. It does not address other situations, but 5:45 does and so does the Sunna.

  • Rasheed Ridha, in his exegesis Al-Manaar, gave the best argument against this claim IMHO. He said that the pre-Islamic practice was vengeful; they would kill a freeman for killing one of their slaves even if it was a slave who did the crime, and a group of people for one, etc. 2:178 therefore corrects that by mandating that when a freeman kills, he is killed, not his slave; when a woman kills, she is killed, not her husband; when an individual kills, he is killed, not his family. I'd add that this equality and fairness is exactly what 5:45 mandates as well. When an eye is hit, an eye is hit back, not both, when a tooth is broken a tooth is broken not the jaw.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:45 abrogate 2:178?
PostPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 16:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 103-105, rejects this claim on the basis of different addresses: 2:178 addresses the Jews, while 5:45 addresses Muslims.

He also argues that the statement "a free person for a free person" in 5:45 implies that a free person should not be killed for killing a slave but the opposite is not implied.

I don't see how he gets those implications. Is it conceivable that God would order that anybody but the killer be killed? Doesn't God make it clear that He "does not do an atom's weight of injustice" (4:40)? Verse 5:45 was revealed to abrogate the unjust practices of the Arabs at the time, who would kill a slave's master whose slave killed a free man of theirs, or who would kill a woman's husband whose wife killed a woman of theirs, etc.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


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, 12:05

All times are UTC

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