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  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2011, 11:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1794
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
I think 4:25 is talking about someone else's bond maid, as evidenced by the requirement for permission from (what I interpret to be) her boss.

I doubt that very much. The Arabs referred to a master as سيد (sire), or مولى (master). Never أهل (family). The permission the verse refers to is from her father, brother, etc.

Not arguing with the linguistics (or with Linguistic :)), but it makes no sense to me that an outside permission is needed for a boss to marry his own bond maid, when he can do a lot of other, less 'noble', stuff with her without anyone's permission.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2011, 20:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Not arguing with the linguistics (or with Linguistic :)), but it makes no sense to me that an outside permission is needed for a boss to marry his own bond maid, when he can do a lot of other, less 'noble', stuff with her without anyone's permission.

That is precisely the point. He is not supposed to do the other stuff! Or, perhaps the verse means, he is encouraged not to do it anymore.

I don't mean to argue, but here you have two legitimate interpretations, one of which seems to suggest abrogation. As I explained before, there is no cause to claim abrogation in this case, even if you agree with my humble interpretation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 13 Aug 2011, 22:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1794
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
That is precisely the point. He is not supposed to do the other stuff! Or, perhaps the verse means, he is encouraged not to do it anymore.

I think the evidence is so overwhelming from other verses that he is allowed to do other stuff that I would like to pursue my line of interpretation further. You point out correctly that

Linguistic wrote:
The Arabs referred to a master as سيد (sire), or مولى (master). Never أهل (family). The permission the verse refers to is from her father, brother, etc.

However, has any of these terms for master been used in the Quran? The reason I am asking is that the Quran often uses a polite term for touchy situations, and I wonder if "أهل" in this case is a manifestation of that. The only related mention of "سيد" in the Quran that I can recall is in


I may be wrong, but I think it's a husband in this case. Interestingly, "أهل" is also used in the verse. The only related mention of "مولى" in the Quran that I found searching is


but it seems to be used in the sense of caregiver not master. BTW, I think the link to abrogation is only tangential, but the discussion makes fasting pass more easily. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2011, 22:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
That is precisely the point. He is not supposed to do the other stuff! Or, perhaps the verse means, he is encouraged not to do it anymore.

I think the evidence is so overwhelming from other verses that he is allowed to do other stuff

What I'm suggesting is that God has let that practice go on for a while because it was so deeply ingrained in the culture, like drinking alcohol. If He would have abruptly forbade it, people would have rebelled or would have turned away.

Instead, He wisely stepped the believers toward freeing their slaves and, for those who could not afford otherwise, marrying their bond maids.

Recall that Chapter 4 is one of the last chapters to be revealed, 92 out of 114?

You may see my point further when you reflect on this verse from Chapter 24, another Chapter that was revealed near the end (102 out of 114),

God's teaching was certainly geared toward chastity for both the masters and their bond maids, even marriage.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 13:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
As far as I know, nobody claimed that this verse,



was abrogated by this verse,


Even though verses with less apparent conflict were claimed abrogated.

Clearly there is no cause to claim abrogation here, because 4:97 refers to those who wronged themselves, while 4:75 refers to those who had no way out. The oppressed have a duty to migrate away from oppressive regimes if they can. If they don't, and the result is that they neglect their religion, that's when 4:97 applies.

That is confirmed by the fact that migration from Mecca to Medina was required of all Muslims who could. Then, when the Prophet (PBUH) conquered Mecca, migration was no longer required. The contingency in both rulings was the same: fitna (persecution in religion). It existed prior to the conquest of Mecca and ended then.

In fact, scholars have quoted those migration rulings as a case of abrogation. For instance, Al-Ħaazimi Al-Hamdaani, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, presented by Sheikh Zakaria `Umayraat, on pages 160-162, quotes the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he says, "There shall be no more migration after the Conquest [of Mecca]; only jihaad and intention." Narrated by Ibn Abbaas and reported by Al-Bukhaari. The irony is that the Prophet (PBUH) gave the reason for the new ruling right there and then: "after the Conquest", yet Al-Hamdaani lists this case under "The migration mandate and its abrogation"!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 02:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1794
Location: USA
Nice analysis.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2011, 18:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Someone was discussing with me inheritance laws in Islam, and he asked if

abrogated

His point was that both verses talk about a decedent who died without children or parents, called in the Quran "Kalaala." He saw that 4:12 gives the siblings a maximum of a 1/3 of the estate, while 4:176 seems to give them the entire estate. Also, 4:12 seems to give a sister 1/6th, while 4:176 gives her 1/2.

I explained to him that the two verses talk about two different sibling categories, as agreed on by scholars. 4:12 talks about uterine siblings, siblings on their mother's side only, while 4:176 talks about full or consanguine siblings (siblings on their father's side only).

This is an interesting "missing" abrogation claim. It was never made by anyone, as far as I know, even though 4:12 does not explicitly name uterine siblings, nor does 4:176 explicitly exclude them! Yet, scholars had no problem with this issue, while other cases with much easier apparent conflicts to resolve were claimed to be abrogation cases by many scholars.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2011, 05:57 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1794
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Someone was discussing with me inheritance laws in Islam, and he asked if
4:176 abrogated 4:12. His point was that both verses talk about a decedent who died without children or parents, called in the Quran "Kalaala." He saw that 4:12 gives the siblings a maximum of a 1/3 of the estate, while while 4:176 seems to give them the entire estate. Also, 4:12 seems to give a sister 1/6th, while 4:176 gives her 1/2.

I explained to him that the two verses talk about two different sibling categories, as agreed on by scholars. 4:12 talks about uterine siblings, siblings on their mother's side only, while 4:176 talks about full or consanguine siblings (siblings on their father's side only).

This is an interesting "missing" abrogation claim. It was never made by anyone, as far as I know, even though 4:12 does not explicitly name uterine siblings, nor does 4:176 explicitly exclude them! Yet, scholars had no problem with this issue, while other cases with much easier apparent conflicts to resolve were claimed to be abrogation cases by many scholars.

Interesting case indeed, and it needed an expert in inheritance law to explain it properly.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 22:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
It seems that the algorithm for claiming abrogation starts from a 'basis', a narration of some kind, then synthesizes an argument about conflict. In the absence of a narration, the argument would be the opposite, explaining away the conflict. This means that the abrogation claim is really about the narration, not about the conflict.

I found several abrogation claims where no narration was cited: 9:5/39:3,39:15,39:39-41,39:46. As mentioned in that post, Dr. Zayd asks the obvious question, "How could its claimants justify their claims? Can abrogation be claimed by Ijtihaad (mere analysis)?"

Some people must have disliked Chapter 39.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 00:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1794
Location: USA
People may perceive a contradiction between the most famous hadeeth "إنما الأعمال بالنيّات ، وإنما لكل امريء مانوى" and this verses


It is a subtle point. Reasoning about what to do is followed by a resolve to do something, followed by implementing it or failing to implement it for reasons out of our control. IMHO, the verses address the reasoning part, for which we should follow the guidelines dictated by the religion. If we don't do that, we may think we are doing the right thing but we are in fact responsible for what happens because we didn't follow the guidelines regardless of our "intentions." The hadeeth, on the other hand, addresses the post-reasoning phase. You already decided to do X in order to achieve Y. Whether you succeed or not, you are accountable for X and Y.

Since both the reasoning and the resolve parts occur in our hearts and minds without action (yet), this may shed light on another abrogation case:


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


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 22 Aug 2017, 09:06

All times are UTC

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