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.  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 4:4 or 4:20 abrogate 2:229?
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 02:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This case is about whether a divorced husband is entitled to take part or all of his dowry from his wife. Here are the two verses,

is claimed to have been abrogated by

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about this case,

ذكر الآية الحادية والثلاثين: قوله تعالى "ولا يحل لكم أن تأخذوا مما آتيتموهن شيئا إلا أن يخافا ألا يقيما حدود الله فإن خفتم ألا يقيما حدود الله فلا جناح عليهما فيما افتدت به". هذه الآية مبينة لحكم الخلع، ولا تكاد تقع الفرقة بين الزوجين إلا بعد فساد الحال، ولذلك علق القرآن جوازه مخالفة تركهما القيام بالحدود وهذا أمر ثابت والآية محكمة عند عامة العلماء، إلا أنه قد أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا أبو الحسين بن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد الكاذي قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حماد بن خالد الخياط قال بنا عقبة بن أبي الصهباء قال سألت بكر بن عبد الله عن رجل سألته امرأته الخلع فقال لا يحل له أن يأخذ منها شيئا. قلت له يقول الله عز وجل "فلا جناح عليهما فيما افتدت به تلك حدود الله" الآية، قال نسخت. قلت فأين جعلت؟ قال في سورة النساء: "وإن أردتم استبدال زوج مكان زوج وآتيتم إحداهن قنطارا فلا تأخذوا منه شيئا". قلت وهذا قول بعيد من وجهين: الأول أن المفسرين قالوا في قوله تعالى "وإن أردتم استبدال زوج مكان زوج" نزلت في الرجل يريد أن يفارق امرأته ويكره أن يصل إليها ما فرض لها من المهر، فلا يزال يتبعها أذي حتى ترد عليه ما أعطاها لتخلص منه، فنهى الله تعالى عن ذلك. فأما آية الخلع فلا تعلق لها بشيء من ذلك. والثاني أن قوله "فلا تأخذوا منه شيئا" إذا كان النشوز من قبله وأراد استبدال غيرها، وقوله "فيما افتدت به" إذا كان النشوز من قبلها فلا وجه للنسخ. وقد ذكر السدي في هذه الآية نسخا من وجه آخر، فقال قوله "ولا يحل لكم أن تأخذوا مما آتيتموهن شيئا" منسوخ بالاستثناء وهو قوله "إلا أن يخافا". قلت وهذا من أرذل الأقوال، لأن الاستثناء إخراج بعض ما شمله اللفظ وليس بنسخ


He correctly points out that 2:229 talks about a wife divorcing her husband (Khul`) while 4:20 talks about a husband divorcing his wife. Two different cases, therefore no abrogation. He reports that As-Suddi said that the abrogation is in the exception clause, إلا أن يخافا. Ibn Al-Jawzi reiterates that exception is not abrogation.

According to Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 229, quoting Makki from his book الإيضاح, Abu-`Ubayd has claimed that the abrogating verse is

He says that the majority disagreed and that it is forbidden to a husband to take any part of the dowry by force.

Assuming that Abu-`Uabyd is Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, I had the opportunity to check what he actually said, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 101. He actually narrated from Abu-Qilaaba his opinion that if a husband sees debauchery from his wife, he is allowed to harass her until she asks for divorce. Abu-Qilaaba used for evidence,

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:4 or 4:20 abrogate 2:229?
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 07:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
It is not particular to this case, but I get the sense that the community of scholars felt an incentive to 'discover' abrogated verses. That's understandable. If you buy into the notion that there are abrogated verses in the Quranic text, that they were not designated as such, and that their number is unknown, it becomes an intellectual curiosity to try to find them. As the 'easier' ones get identified, people may push the limits of logic to try to find new ones.

I wonder if the scholars would have considered the above case as a candidate for abrogation if it was the only case in the text that could be found. Somehow, the more verses people 'find', the more they seek.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:4 or 4:20 abrogate 2:229?
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2010, 15:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
I do see a dilemma that some abrogationists may have seen and that is that both verses state that it is totally forbidden for the husband to take a penny from his divorced wife. The issue facing a judge would be whether there is an exception to this stark injunction.

The answer, IMHO, is yes, and it is specified in 2:229 as "but if they fear that they will not uphold God's limits, then there is no violation on her part if she ransoms some of her dowry." It is then a matter of determining what is meant by "not upholding the limits of God." This has been explained by the Sunna when a woman came to the prophet, peace be upon him, and said to him that her husband is a good Muslim but that she does not bear being with him. He said to her, "Would you give him back his garden (the dowry he gave her)?" When she agreed, he let her divorce him. That established the law of Khul` and it is that which explains how these two verses are not in conflict.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Bakr ibn `Abdillaah Al-Muzani, and As-Suddi.
Abu-`Ubayd (according to Makki).

Against:
The majority, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
At-Tabari,
Ibn Al-`Arabi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Aloosi,
Al-Qurtubi,
An-Nahhaas and Makki (who also both confirmed that the majority is against),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
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.  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 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, 13:10

All times are UTC

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