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 2:220 or 4:6 abrogate 4:2 or 4:10?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 17:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This case is about a guardian of orphans and whether he can share with them in their money entrusted to him and live with them. Here are the two verses,

is claimed to have been abrogated by

And some people claimed the abrogating verse was


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

ذكر الآية الخامسة: قوله تعالى "الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما"، قد توهم قوم لم يرزقوا فهم التفسير وفقهه أن هذه الآية منسوخة بقوله تعالى "وإن تخالطوهم فإخوانكم"، وأثبتوا ذلك في كتب الناسخ والمنسوخ، ورووه عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. وإنما المنقول عن ابن عباس ما أخبرنا به المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد ابن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا أبو إسحاق البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا عمرو بن علي بن بحر قال بنا عمران بن عيينة قال بنا عطاء بن السائب عن سعيد بن جبير عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما" قال: كان في حجر الرجل اليتيم فعزل طعامه وشرابه فاشتد ذلك على المسلمين، فأنزل الله تعالى "وإن تخالطوهم فإخوانكم"، فأحل لهم طعامهم. وقال سعيد بن جبير: لما نزلت "الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما" عزلوا أموالهم من أموال اليتامى، وتحرجوا من مخالطتهم، فنزل قوله تعالى "وإن تخالطوهم فإخوانكم". وهذا ليس على سبيل النسخ، لأنه لا خلاف أن أكل أموال اليتامى ظلما حرام. وقال أبو جعفر النحاس: هذه الآية لا يجوز فيها ناسخ ولا منسوخ، لأنها خبر ووعيد ونهي عن الظلم والتعدي ومحال نسخ هذا. فإن صح ما ذكروا عن ابن عباس، فتأويله من اللغة أن هذه الآية على نسخ تلك الآية. وزعم بعضهم أن ناسخ هذه الآية قوله تعالى "ومن كان فقيرا فليأكل بالمعروف"، وهذا قبيح لأن الأكل بالمعروف ليس بظلم فلا تنافي بين الآيتين


Ibn Al-Jawzi objects to the claim and reports two conflicting opinions of Ibn `Abbaas. He reports An-Nahhaas, in support of his objection, saying that 4:10 is about prohibiting injustice in handling orphans money, something which cannot be abrogated!

He also ridicules the claim that it was 4:6 that abrogated 4:10, saying that "eating what is customary" is not injustice!

See also the related claim, Did 4:10 or 4:29 abrogate 4:6?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:220 abrogate 4:10?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 03:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
This would be humorous if the matter was not that serious. I don't see any remote claim of abrogation here.

Linguistic wrote:
He also ridicules the claim that it was 4:6 that abrogated 4:10, saying that "eating what is customary" is not injustice!
So they tried the other way around and when there was no contradiction between the two verses they decided to try having the earlier verse abrogate the later verse to strengthen their case?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:220 abrogate 4:10?
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2010, 04:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi was one of those who said that the abrogating verse is


Besides how Ibn Al-Jawzi refuted this claim, see the OP, This is an even easier claim to refute, since 4:6 elaborates on the proper way a guardian may take money from the orphan, thus avoiding that transgression warned against in 4:10. Elaboration qualifies as Naskh but not as abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 27 Sep 2010, 17:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Al-Hasan (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari, Ibn Salaama, Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abdul-Qaahir (Al-Baghdaadi?) (according to Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.
P.S. Scholars unnamed by Ibn Al-Jawzi have claimed that Ibn Abbaas and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer made this claim, but Ibn Al-Jawzi shows how they misunderstood what they said.

Against:
`Aa'isha (implied, quoted by Al-Jabri),
An-Nahhaas,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Muhammad ibn Al-Mutahhar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:220 abrogate 4:2 or 4:10?
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010, 16:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 182-184 (items 975-980) discusses this claim but says it targets

He rejects the claim on the basis of no contradiction. He says that only Abdul-Qaahir (Al-Baghdaadi?) explicitly said that 2:220 abrogated 4:2 and that there is an agreement about that!

Dr. Zayd seems to mix this claim with the claim that it was 4:10 that was abrogated. He asks the following logical question, which should always be asked when a claim of abrogation is made: Is it now OK to eat from the property of an orphan unjustly? While 4:2 does not talk about misappropriation of an orphans property, 4:10 does. 4:2 only talks about mixing property. Thus, there is cause to claim abrogation of 4:2, but none for 4:10. Dr. Zayd seems to bundle the two together.

He quotes An-Nahhaas making this very important statement about the abrogation claim of 4:10,

قال سعيد بن جبير: لما نزلت: (إن الذين يأكلون أموال اليتامى ظلما) اشتد على الناس وامتنعوا عن مخالطة اليتامى، حتى نزلت: (ويسألونك عن اليتامى قل إصلاح لهم خير) الآية، والمعنى على هذا القول: أنه لما وقع بقلوبهم أنه لا ينبغي أن تخالطوا اليتامى في شيئ لئلا تحرجوا بذلك، نسخ الله ما وقع بقلوبهم، أي أزاله، بأن أباح لهم مخالطة اليتامى؛

Translation:
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer said, "When 4:2 was revealed, it was hard on people and they stopped mixing with the orphans, until 2:220 was revealed. The meaning is: When they felt that they should not mix with orphans lest they should sin, God abrogated what they felt, that is removed it, by allowing them to mix with orphans.

Clearly, what was abrogated was the wrong understanding of 4:10, not 4:10 itself. Quite often, that is exactly what the abrogation discussion has been about: God correcting what people thought a verse meant. In this case, people reacted that way because of their ultra sense of piety, may God have been pleased with them. They forbade any mixing of property whatsoever, even reasonable, customary mixing.

So, why didn't God reveal the clarifying verse together with the misunderstood verse? IMHO, so that people go through this exercise! It is important for the people who will be conveying the Message of God to the world to correctly understand it themselves first.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:220 abrogate 4:2 or 4:10?
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 07:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He says that only Abdul-Qaahir (Al-Baghdaadi?)

I remember that this is one of the often-quoted people in Zaid's book, and he gives his full name in one of the pages, so we can verify that.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:220 abrogate 4:2 or 4:10?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2011, 02:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
He says that only Abdul-Qaahir (Al-Baghdaadi?)

I remember that this is one of the often-quoted people in Zaid's book, and he gives his full name in one of the pages, so we can verify that.

I meant that Dr. Zayd did not give his last name when he mentioned him as being for the claim. In all likelihood, his last name is Al-Baghdaadi since I'm not aware of any other scholar named Abdul-Qaahir who wrote about abrogation.

_________________
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 33 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, 08:43

All times are UTC

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