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.  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did parts of 2:233 abrogate other parts?
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 19:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This case is actually two cases: One is about the mandatory duration of suckling a newborn and the other is about who must support the mother. Here is the subject verse,

This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi reports about this case,

ذكر الآية الثانية والثلاثين: قوله تعالى "والوالدات يرضعن أولادهن حولين كاملين". عامة أهل العلم على أن هذا الكلام محكم، والمقصود منه بيان مدة الرضاع، ويتعلق بهذه المدة أحكام الرضاع. وذهب قوم من القراء إلى أنه منسوخ بقوله تعالى "فإن أرادا فصالا"، قالوا فنسخ تمام الحولين باتفاقهما على ما دون ذلك. وهذا ليس بشيء لأن الله تعالى قال "لمن أراد أن يتم الرضاعة"، فلما قال "فإن أرادا فصالا" خير بين الإرادتين فلا تعارض. وفي الآية موضع آخر وهو قوله تعالى "وعلى الوارث مثل ذلك". اختلفوا في الوارث، فقال بعضهم هو وارث المولود، وقال بعضهم هو وارث الوالد. وقال بعضهم المراد بالوارث الباقي من والدي الولد بعد وفاة الآخر. وقيل المراد بالوارث الصبي نفسه عليه لأمه مثل ما كان على أبيه لها من الكسوة والنفقة. وقيل بل على الوارث أن لا يضار.

واعلم أن قول الوارث الصبي والنفقة عليه لا ينافي قول من قال المراد بالوارث وارث الصبي، لأن النفقة إنما تجب على الوراث إذا ثبت إعسار المنفق عليه. وقال مالك بن أنس لا يلزم الرجل نفقة أخ ولا ذي قرابة ولا ذي رحم منه! قال وقول الله عز وجل "وعلى الوارث مثل ذلك" منسوخ. ولم يبين مالك ما الناسخ. قال أبو جعفر النحاس ويشبه أن يكون الناسخ عنده أنه لما أوجب الله عز وجل للمتوفي عنها زوجها من قبل المتوفي نفقة حول والسكنى ثم نسخ ذلك ورفعه نسخ ذلك أيضا عن الوارث


He points out that some understood that the suckling period set to two full years is changed by the words "but if they wish to wean.." which implies that the suckling may be less than two years. Ibn Al-Jawzi draws attention to the words "for whoever wishes to fulfill the suckling period" which makes it clear that these are two options, not an abrogation case.

Then he speaks about the words "and upon the heir likewise." He says different scholars understood the heir differently and therefore their view of who has to support the mother and for how long differs. That is a discussion that has nothing to do with abrogation. However, Maalik did say that the clause وعلى الوارث مثل ذلك (and upon the heir likewise) was abrogated, but he did not say by what! An-Nahhaas tried to explain by saying that the requirement of stipend and living quarters for the widow was abrogated and likewise the requirement upon the heir.

So, a wrong assumption is made, that stipend and living quarters are no longer required, and based on that wrong assumption another ruling is issued to include the heir.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did parts of 2:233 abrogate other parts?
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 22:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
some understood that the suckling period set to two full years is changed by the words "but if they wish to wean.." which implies that the suckling may be less than two years. Ibn Al-Jawzi draws attention to the words "for whoever wishes to fulfill the suckling period" which makes it clear that these are two options, not an abrogation case.

Then he speaks about the words "and upon the heir likewise." He says different scholars understood the heir differently and therefore their view of who has to support the mother and for how long differs. That is a discussion that has nothing to do with abrogation.

Agreed. It is clear to me that the burden of proof to declare a verse abrogated just kept getting lower and lower. We should remember that abrogation of existing verses overrules the word of God, and the burden of proof should be set accordingly.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did one part of 2:233 abrogate another part?
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 04:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi agrees with this claim and says that the sentence والوالدات يرضعن أولادهن حولين كاملين (Mothers may breastfeed their children two complete years) was abrogated by the subsequent sentence فإن أرادا فصالا عن تراض منهما وتشاور فلا جناح عليهما (And if they both desire weaning through mutual consent from both of them and consultation, there is no blame upon either of them).

How is that abrogation? The second sentence is a completion of the ruling started in the first sentence. Doesn't "mutual consent" and "consultation" mean it's optional? How can an option abrogate?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did one part of 2:233 abrogate another part?
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 06:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
I really don't know what to say. In addition to what you point out, Linguistic, the 'abrogated' sentence is already qualified by "for whoever wishes to complete the nursing."

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 07 May 2010, 03:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Maalik ibn Anas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
The majority, according to Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri,
Ibn Al-`Arabi,
Al-Qurtubi,
Makki (implied),
Al-Aloosi,
Ar-Raazi (who also interpreted Maalik's statement to mean specification rather than annulment),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did one part of 2:233 abrogate another part?
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 05:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I really don't know what to say. In addition to what you point out, Linguistic, the 'abrogated' sentence is already qualified by "for whoever wishes to complete the nursing."

Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 89-91, says that the verse specifies a number of options, all of which must be arrived at by mutual consultation between the two parents. The areas of the options are two: nursing length and provision for nursing. He said that the verse clearly suggests that two years is the proper length of nursing but is not mandatory; if both parents agree to wean the child earlier, it's no sin. The nursing is not a mandate on the mother; a wet nurse may be hired. The expenses of nursing are on the father or his heir if he dies.

It's all straightforward and rational. No cause for abrogation anywhere here.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did parts of 2:233 abrogate other parts?
PostPosted: 07 Aug 2010, 18:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Then he speaks about the words "and upon the heir likewise." He says different scholars understood the heir differently and therefore their view of who has to support the mother and for how long differs. That is a discussion that has nothing to do with abrogation.

As mentioned in the OP, Maalik stated that this clause was abrogated. According to Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 230, mentions that Abdur-Rahmaan Ibn Al-Qaasim Al-`Ateeqi, a jurist who narrated Maalik's juristic rulings, said that Maalik did not tell him what the abrogating verse was, nor what the replacing ruling is! He said that scholars ventured into explanations of that opinion of his. In addition to what An-Nahhaas wrote for explanation and quoted in the OP, Makki wrote,

وتأويل ذلك فيما نرى - والله أعلم - أنه كان الحكم في الآية على وارث المولود نفقته إذا لم يكن له مال ولا أب ... فكأنه كانت الإشارة بذلك إلى النفقة، فصارت إلى ترك المضارة وهو مذهب مالك المشهور عنه

Translation: The interpretation of that as we see - and God knows best - that the ruling in the verse was to for the heir to support the child if he had no money or a father, then the ruling switched to avoiding predicament (financial difficulty?) which is the known ruling of Maalik.

The principle of avoiding predicament is stated in 2:233 as well by the clause لاتضار والدة بولدها ولا مولود له بولده (No mother shall be burdened by her child nor a stepfather by his wife's child). That establishes the provisions and conditions of the ruling, it does not abrogate it!

_________________
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.  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 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 29 Mar 2024, 14:40

All times are UTC

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