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  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2010, 17:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
no verse has allowed temporary marriage. 4:24 does not speak of temporary marriage, it speaks of the requirement of a dowry when marriage is consummated. The word Mut`a is often incorrectly translated as "enjoyment" and thus thought to be a metaphor for sex. The word can mean that, but is not limited to it. Any kind of comfort or leeway is called Mut`a, such as حج التمتع (pilgrimage with a break within it). Alimony is also called Mut`a.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 194- (items 1002-), rejects this claim and mentions a strange recitation of 4:24 attributed to Ubayy, Ibn Abbaas and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer. In their recitation they add the phrase إلى أجل مسمى (until a specified term), which, if it were true, would make this verse specific to temporary marriage. Dr. Zayd dismisses that recitation as contrary to the bound volume of the Quran and the ubiquitous recitation of the majority. I find reports of alternate recitations implausible, especially since Ubayy was one of the many trusted Sahaaba to inscribe the Quran as it was revealed.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1, 2:228 or the Sunna abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2011, 18:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 49-50, says that 4:24 was abrogated by the Sunna, i.e., the hadeeth, reported by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and Al-Bayhaqi where the Prophet (PBUH) says, "I have allowed you this temporary marriage. Hear ye! God and His Messenger have prohibited it. Hear ye! Let the witness among you tell the absent."

He then cites Ash-Shaafi`i as saying the same.

Then he says that 4:24 was abrogated by

Perhaps he meant that 23:5-7 confirm the hadeeth in abrogating 4:24? But then I'm second-guessing him.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2013, 18:34 
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 124-126, approves this claim. First, he reports that scholars have differed in interpreting 4:24. Mujaahid and Al-Hasan understood it to refer to proper marriage and both emphatically stated that God has never allowed temporary marriage in His Book. How true.

But then, he reports that most scholars have understood the verse to refer to temporary marriage, and based on that interpretation, they differed still on whether that assumption of allowing temporary marriage has been abrogated. Shu`la says that a group of people, none of whom he named, said that temporary marriage was abrogated by the Quran. He quotes `Aa'isha (RA) saying, "Between them (those who allow temporary marriage) and us is the Book of God: we don't find in it but wives and bond maids." And she would then recite,


Shu`la reports the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he forbade temporary marriage on the day of Khaybar. Shu`la rejects the attribution to Ali that he allowed it, saying how could he when Ali was one of those who narrated that hadeeth? Furthermore, Shu`la says that whatever has been reported that Ibn Abbaas allowed temporary marriage happened before Ali drew the attention of Ibn Abbaas to the prohibition by the Prophet (PBUH).

Shu`la finally adds that Ibn Umar said that temporary marriage is fornication and his father Umar said he would "put under stones anyone who engages in a temporary marriage." Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, who verified the book could not find that quote by Umar anywhere though.

It is clear to me therefore that conflation of two issues took place in this claim: (a) What kind of marriage verse 4:24 talks about, and (b) The reports about the prophet (PBUH) allowing temporary marriage then forbidding it.

For the purpose of this claim, `Aa'isha (RA) is definitely right. The verse has nothing to do with temporary marriage. Therefore, any discussion of its abrogation is moot.

For the purpose of a ruling on temporary marriage, it is forever forbidden by the Prophet (PBUH). The fact that the Prophet (PBUH) allowed it once, on his own, then rescinded his previous ruling, has nothing to do with 4:24.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2013, 19:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is a good article summarizing arguments against allowing temporary marriage:
http://aljame3.net/ib/index.php?showtopic=1248

I was struck by this narration reported by Al-Khataabi, by Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,

قال الخطابى [ إن سعيد بن الجبير، قال قلت لإبن عباس: هل تدرى ما صنعت و بما أفتيت؟....قد سارت بفتياك الركبان، و قالت فيه الشعراء، قال: و ما قالوا؟ قلت: قالوا:
قد قلت للشيخ لما طال محبسه يا صاح هل لك فى فتيا ابن عباس
هل لك فى رخصة الأطراف أنسة تكون مثواك حتى رجعة الناس؟
فقال ابن عباس: (إنا لله و إنا إليه راجعون! والله ما بهذا أفتيت ولا هذا أردت و ولا أحللت إلا مثل ما أحل الله الميتة و الدم و لحم الخنزير، و ما تحل إلا لمضطر، و ما هى إلا كالميتة و الدم و لحم الخنزير..أهـ

Brief translation:
Ibn Jabeer drew the attention of Ibn Abbaas, to the consequences of the latter's ruling allowing temporary marriage. He told him that people wrote poetry about it and recited a couple of lines of that to him. Ibn Abbaas felt remorse and replied, "I only allowed it for necessity, like dead meat and pork!"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 15:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 137-139, discusses temporary marriage and concludes that it was allowed for a while then permanently prohibited.

He reports a very strange narration by Ibn Abbaas, in which he says, "There was temporary marriage in the beginning of Islam. A man coming to town with merchandise would have no one to trust with his property, so he would marry a woman for a set period. Verse 4:24 used to be read "فما استمتعتم به منهن إلى أجل مسمى فآتوهن أجورهن"! Then, verse 4:23 was revealed,

And people stopped temporary marriage arrangement. The man would either divorce or hold on to a now proper marriage."

Al-Hamdaani points out that this narration has one narrator in its chain, Moosa ibn `Ubayda, who is not trusted.

I don't know where to begin. How dare some people add words to an existing verse? How can a verse revealed before another abrogate the verse revealed after it?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2013, 15:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 137-139, discusses temporary marriage and concludes that it was allowed for a while then permanently prohibited.

Al-Hamdaani reports a hadeeth, that I haven't read anybody else reporting it. In this hadeeth, narrated by Jaabir ibn Abdillah (RA) saying, "We set off with the Messenger of God to the battle of Tabook. When we were at Al-`Aqaba next to the Levant, some women came by and lingered around. When the Prophet (PBUH) saw them, he asked who they were. We answered that they are women we married briefly. The Prophet (PBUH) became red angry. He stood up and sermoned a ban on temporary marriage. We swore it off since. We called the event ثنية الوداع (the farewell corner)."

I looked it up. Its authenticity is not strong. But the reason I emphasize this hadeeth is because the reports on when the Prophet (PBUH) ordered a ban on temporary marriage are conflicting. One says it was at the farewell sermon (10 A.H.), one says it was on the day of the Khaybar battle (7 A.H.). This one says it was on the day of the Tabook battle (9 A.H.). In each of these events, there was a huge gathering of Muslims that included all of the prominent ones. So, why did the Prophet (PBUH) keep repeating himself? Why didn't Muslims get the teaching the first time, in 7 A.H.? All this leads me to think that the Prophet (PBUH) may never have allowed it in the first place.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 17 Sep 2019, 13:01

All times are UTC

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