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.  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 5:34 abrogate 5:33?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 05:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This is another case quickly dismissed by Ibn Al-Jawzi, where some scholars have claimed that an exception in a verse abrogates the ruling in another. The verse is,

is claimed to have been abrogated by


This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi said,

ذكر الآية الخامسة: قوله تعالى "إنما جزاء الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا أن يقتلوا". هذه الآية محكمة عند الفقهاء، واختلفوا هل هذه العقوبة على الترتيب أم على التخيير. فمذهب أحمد بن حنبل في جماعة أنها على الترتيب، وأنهم إذا قتلوا وأخذوا المال أو قتلوا ولم يأخذوا قتلوا وصلبوا، وان أخذوا المال ولم يقتلوا قطعت أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف، وإن لم يأخذوا المال نفوا. وقال مالك الإمام مخير في إقامة أي الحدود شاء سواء قتلوا أم لم يقتلوا أخذوا المال أو لم يأخذوا. وقد ذهب بعض مفسري القرآن ممن لا فهم له أن هذه الآية منسوخة بالاستثناء بعدها وقد بينا فساد هذا القول في مواضع


If I understood correctly, Ibn Al-Jawzi is saying that the consensus is that the punishment for the crime as specified in 5:33 is not altered by the criminal's repentance. Has that been the verdict of Muslim judges? I believe it has. This is one of the "limits of God" (حدود الله), known in Islamic law as حد الحرابة (Al-Hiraaba) and therefore the punishment must be rendered even if the criminal repents. This is not a simple exception case as the other cases Ibn Al-Jawzi correctly dismissed.

IMHO, 5:34 clearly states that the punishment may be dropped when the criminal repents and that is a proviso of the law specified in 5:33 and adds another option for the judge to consider. If the punishment is suspended, this is clearly not a case of abrogation. But if judges have enforced 5:33 even when the criminal repented, then they have deliberately ignored 5:34, which means they thought 5:34 is abrogated! But no scholar said that!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:34 abrogate 5:33?
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 08:04 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Under all scenarios, the second verse is only an exception so it does not annul the first, hence there is no abrogation. The other ramifications do not bear on the abrogation question.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 03 Jun 2010, 20:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (implied),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Seereen,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
The majority of jurists (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi),
Ibn Hanbal (implied),
An-Nahhaas,
Maalik (implied),
Ar-Raazi,
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 5:34 abrogate 5:33?
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2010, 15:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Under all scenarios, the second verse is only an exception so it does not annul the first, hence there is no abrogation. The other ramifications do not bear on the abrogation question.

But verse 5:34 specifically says "before you catch them", so the question is what happens if they repent before they are caught? Are they still to be punished? If they are let go, then, by analogy, all punishments of crimes should also be dropped if the criminal repents before he is caught by the authorities. I doubt that any scholar would agree. I therefore conclude that the exception applies only to the last statement in 5:33, "And for them in the Hereafter is a great torment."

Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 129, states that Muslims are unanimous in saying that the exception in 5:34 applies to all categories listed in 5:33. He uses that to argue that the testimony of a man who has falsely accused his wife of adultery and later repented, that his subsequent testimony is allowed, see the abrogation claim 24:5/24:4. I disagree for the same reason I mentioned for the claim at hand: The exception applies only to the last statement in 24:4, "And those are the deviant."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:34 abrogate 5:33?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 08:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Unless I missed the point, your argument is general about the interpretation of the verses rather than about the abrogation claim per se. 5:33 was not abrogated because if people do what it describes and do not repent before they are caught (thus not enjoying the exception in 5:34), the punishment prescribed in 5:33 applies. If 5:33 were abrogated, there would be no punishment for these actions, at least not based on what 5:33 says.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 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, 09:34

All times are UTC

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