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  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2010, 05:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that scholars such as Ibn Abbaas have said that the verse allowing the guardian of an orphan to spend on himself some of the orphan's money,

is abrogated by

and by

Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that the scholars differed in opinion about what بالمعروف means, which is rather ironic since the word means "what is well recognized!" Those who saw it to mean to spend the minimum needed, Ibn Al-Jawzi concluded the verse would not be abrogated in such case.

But others have said that it is abrogated by the prohibition implied in 4:10 and 4:29.

Here is what Idn Al-Jawzi wrote,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة النساء وهي ست وعشرين. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "ومن كان غنيا فليستعفف ومن كان فقيرا فليأكل بالمعروف". اتفق العلماء على أن الوصي الغني لا يحل له أن يأكل من مال اليتيم شيئا، وقالوا معنى قوله "فليستعفف" أي بمال نفسه عن مال اليتيم، فإن كان فقيرا فلهم في المراد بأكله بالمعروف أربعة أقوال:
القول الأول أنه الاستقراض منه. روى حارثة بن مضرب قال سمعت عمر يقول: إني أنزلت مال الله مني بمنزلة اليتيم، إن استغنيت استعففت وإن افتقرت أكلت بالمعروف ثم قضيت. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ قال أبنا أبو الفضل بن خيرون وأبو طاهر الباقلاوي قالا أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال أبنا أحمد بن كامل قال أبنا محمد بن سعد قال حدثني أبي قال عمي عن أبيه عن جده عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "فليأكل بالمعروف" قال: يستقرض منه فإذا وجد ميسرة فليقض ما يستقرض فذلك أكله بالمعروف. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب قال أبنا أبو طاهر قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا عبد الرحمن بن الحسن قال أبنا إبراهيم بن الحسين قال أبنا آدم قال أبنا ورقاء عن ابن أبي نجيح عن مجاهد قال: يأكل بالمعروف يعني سلفا من مال يتيمه، وهذا القول مذهب عبيدة السلماني وأبي وائل وسعيد بن جبير وأبي العالية ومقاتل وقد حكى الطحاوي عن أبي حنيفة مثله وروى يعقوب بن حيان عن أحمد بن حنبل مثله.
القول الثاني أن الأكل بالمعروف أن ياكل من غير إسراف. أخبرنا ابن الحصين قال أبنا ابن غيلان قال أبنا أبو بكر الشافعي قال بنا إسحاق بن الحسن قال أبنا موسى بن مسعود قال بنا الثوري قال بنا سفيان عن مغيرة عن إبراهيم "ومن كان فقيرا فليأكل بالمعروف"، قال ما يسد الجوع ويواري العورة. وقد روى عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أنه قال الوصي إذا احتاج وضع يده مع أيديهم ولا يلبس عمامة. وقال الحسن وعطاء ومكحول يأخذ ما يسد الجوع ويواري العورة ولا يقضي إذا وجد. قال عكرمة والسدي يأكل بأطراف أصابعة ولا يسرف في الأكل
ولا يكتسي منه وهذا مذهب قتادة.
والقول الثالث أنه يقول مال اليتيم بمنزلة الميتة يتناول منه عند الضرورة فإذا أيسر قضاء وإن لم يوسر فهو في حل قاله الشعبي. وأخبرنا عبد الوهاب قال أبنا أبو طاهر الباقلاوي وقال أبنا عبد الرحمن بن الحسن قال أبنا إبراهيم بن الحسين قال بنا آدم قال بنا ورقاء عن عبد الأعلى عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس قال يأكل والي اليتيم من مال اليتيم قوته ويلبس منه ما يستره ويشرب فضل اللبن ويركب فضل الظهر فإن أيسر قضاه وإن أعسر كان في حل.
فهذه الأقوال الثلاثة تدل على جواز الأخذ عند الحاجة وإن اختلف أربابها في القضاء. القول الرابع أن الأكل بالمعروف أن يأخذ الولي بقدر أجرته إذا عمل لليتيم عملا. وروى القاسم بن محمد أن رجلا أتى ابن عباس فقال ليتيم لي إبل فما لي من إبله قال إن كنت تلوظ حياضها وتهنأ جرباها وتبغي ضالتها وتسعى عليها فاشرب غير ناهك بحلب ولا ضار بنسل. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب قال أبنا أبو طاهر قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا عبد الرحمن بن الحسن قال أبنا إبراهيم بن الحسين قال بنا آدم بنا ورقاء عن ابن نجيح عن عطاء بن أبي رباح قال يضع يده مع أيديهم ويأكل معهم بقدر خدمته وقدر عمله وقد روى أبو طالب وابن منصور عن أحمد بن حنبل مثل هذا.

فصل: وعلى هذه الأقوال الآية محكمة وقد ذهب قوم إلى نسخها فقالوا كان هذا في أول الأمر ثم نسخت بقوله تعالى "لا تأكلوا أموالكم بينكم بالباطل، وقد حكى هذا المعنى عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا بن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد الكاذي قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن أبن عباس رضي الله عنهما "ومن كان غنيا فليستعفف ومن كان فقيرا فليأكل بالمعروف" قال نسخ من ذلك الظلم والاعتداء فنسخها "إن الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما". أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال بنا أبو إسحاق البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال محمد بن سعد قال حدثني أبي عن الحسين عن الحسن عن عطية عن ابن العباس رضي الله عنهما في قوله "ومن كان غنيا فليستعفف ومن كان فقيرا فليأكل بالمعروف" نسختها الآية التي تليها "إن الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما" الآية. قلت وهذا مقتضى قول أبي حنيفة أعني النسخ لأن المشهور عنه أنه لا يجوز للوصي الأخذ من مال اليتيم عند الحاجة على وجه القرض وإن أخذ ضمن وقال قوم لو أدركته ضرورة جاز له أكل الميتة ولا يأخذ من مال اليتيم شيئا


It is clear to me that 4:6 specifies the condition for spending, namely, a rich guardian is not to take any money from the orphan's, but a poor one may take what is customary. This establishes justice in the matter. That is the opposite of what 4:10 and 4:29 talk about; they talk about injustice. They talk about taking from the orphan's money without right. The two verses complement each other, rather than abrogate one another.

See also the related claim, Did 2:220 or 4:6 abrogate 4:2 or 4:10?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2010, 06:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
This is a very weak claim indeed. The permission to spend in 4:6 is qualified by "بالمعروف" while the prohibition in 4:10 is qualified by "ظلما" and in 4:29 by "بالباطل" and these two qualifications are incompatible with the first one, so there is no contradiction. To see that they are incompatible, consider


As the attribute that defines the best nation produced for mankind, "المعروف" certainly would not be compatible with "الباطل" or with "الظلم"

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 20 May 2010, 06:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 103-105, quotes a lot of strange opinions that have been suggested. One such opinion was that a poor guardian who took money while guarding an orphan must pay it back when he becomes rich and they quote 4:6's فادفعوا إليهم أموالهم (and then pay them their money) as evidence! As-Saqqa says that it is abundantly evident that this phrase refers to the property of the orphan assigned to him when he comes of age. I'd certainly agree as evidenced by the very next sentence. Indeed, jurists, such as Al-Hasan, Qataada, Ataa' and An-Nakh`i, have thus ruled that there is no payback upon the guardian.

As-Saqqa also confirms what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about Muslims' reaction to 4:6 in that they shied away from touching the orphan's money and would not even eat with them. As-Saqqa says that is an erroneous understanding of the verse, because the prohibition is against injustice and wrongdoing, not against fair and customary practices.

Another strange opinion he quotes was attributed to Ibn Abbaas, An-Nakh`i, An-Nahhaas, and Al-Qurtubi that a rich guardian must spend from his money only and the poor guardian must tighten his belt so that he does not need any of the orphan's money. As-Saqqa says that too is erroneous because the verse says بالمعروف (as is customary) and that is not the same as extravagance. I think those venerable scholars wanted to be very pious because God's warning against consuming orphans money is so severe.

Ibn Salaama actually opined that the claim is the other way around: that 4:6 abrogated 4:10! This was mentioned by Al-Jabri in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 34. This has to be a typo from Ibn Salaama! He couldn't possibly mean that those "who consume the orphan's wealth unjustly" will no longer "singe in the blazing fire".

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 20 May 2010, 06:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (in one report),
Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibrahim ibn Abdillah (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Haneefa,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (in another report by Makki),
Umar, Ibn Mas`ood, Abul-`Aaliya, `Ataa', Ibn Jabeer, Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan, Qataada, An-Nakh`i and Ibn Zayd (according to Makki),
`Aa'isha (according to Al-Jabri),
Mujaahid (according to Shu`la),
`Abeeda ibn `Amr As-Slamaani (according to Shu`la),
Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal (according to Shu`la, though each had two different opinions),
Muhyid-Deen ibn `Arabi (according to Al-Jabri and quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 31 May 2010, 05:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 195-197, refutes this claim on the basis of no contradiction. He adds that some people whom he did not name have claimed that 4:6 was abrogated by

And that some who said that 4:6 was abrogated by 4:10 have also claimed that 4:10 itself was abrogated by

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010, 17:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One ironic thing Dr. Mustafa Zayd writes about regarding these claims, which he rejects in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 184-189 (items 981-991), is that scholars have differed about the meaning of المعروف (what is recognized as right) and offered five different definitions! The word means "the recognized"! Doesn't that mean that one would know it when they see it?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Consequences
PostPosted: 31 Dec 2010, 18:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Under he heading of "Caring for orphans", Al-Jabri lists this claim. He rejects it of course and adds that the claim, if accepted, would annul the following teachings, principles and values:

  1. Reasonable and customary compensation for orphan guardians.
  2. Guidelines for determining maturity, i.e., when an orphan is qualified to assume responsibility for his or her property.
  3. Encouragement of rich guardians to work for free.
  4. Formal transfer of authority to the orphan in front of witnesses.
  5. Legislating against the human tendency of taking advantage of the weak and poor.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 18:46 
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 122-123, discusses this claim but does not take a position on it. He explained that Ibn Abbaas and Abu-Haneefa's rulings have been that the guardian of an orphan cannot take any of the property of the orphan for any reason. They approved of this abrogation claim. Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris added Abu-Haneefa's student Abu-Yoosuf to them. He also explained, according to An-Nahhaas, that they made an exception for if the guardian had to travel for the business of the orphan.

Shu`la also said that Umar, `Abeeda ibn `Amr, Abul-`Aaliya, Ibn Jabeer and Mujaahid allowed the guardian to borrow from the orphan's estate. Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal each had two different opinions, one of which was to allow consumption when in need but with a guarantee of replacement when the guardian's financial situation improves.

It is clear to me that the scholars, may God reward them for their efforts, exercised great caution in this matter because of the stark statement God makes in 4:10. But their sharp differences confuse the matter for a guardian. What is he supposed to do and what is he is required to avoid in the case he does need help? If he follows the more strict rulings, his job may be unbearable and that would discourage potentially good guardians from taking the job. If we concede that God's instruction in 4:6 is vague (I don't), when He uses the word بالمعروف (the customary), it is vague on purpose! It is not supposed to be restricted to the restrictions offered by the scholars. It is supposed to be open to what the average person understand "the customary" to be.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 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, 12:04

All times are UTC

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