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 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2010, 01:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

has been claimed abrogated by


Among those who said so were Ibn Abbaas, Ibraaheem (An-Nakh`i), Ash-Sha`bi, Abu-Razeen, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan, Ibn Abi-Layla, Az-Zajjaaj, Ibn Qateeba, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and Qataada.

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about this case,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة النحل. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "ومن ثمرات النخيل والأعناب تتخذون منه سكرا ورزقا حسنا". اختلف المفسرون بالمراد بالسكر على ثلاثة أقوال:
القول الأول أنه الخمر، قاله ابن مسعود وابن عمر وابن عباس رضي الله عنهم. أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا أبو الفضل البقال قال أبنا أبو الحسن بن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق الكاذي قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "تتخذون منه سكرا" قال النبيذ فنسختها "إنما الخمر والميسر" الآية. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال بنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا حفص بن عمر قال بنا شعبة عن مغيرة عن إبراهيم والشعبي وأبي رزين أنهم قالوا "تتخذون منه سكرا" قالوا هذه منسوخة. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا إبراهيم بن عمر قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا عبد الله بن الصباح قال بنا أبو علي الحنفي قال بنا اسرائيل أبي الهيثم عن سعيد بن جبير في قوله "تتخذون منه سكرا" قال الخمر. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ قال أبنا أبو طاهر الباقلاوي قال أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال أبنا عبد الرحمن بن الحسن قال بنا إبراهيم بن الحسين قال بنا آدم قال بنا ورقاء عن ابن أبي نجيح عن مجاهد "تتخذون منه سكرا" قال السكر الخمر قبل تحريمها، وهذا قول الحسن وبن أبي ليلى والزجاج وابن قتيبة، ومذهب أهل هذا القول أن هذه الآية نزلت إذ كانت الخمر مباحة ثم نسخت بقوله "فاجتنبوه"، ومن صرح بأنها منسوخة سعيد بن جبير ومجاهد والشعبي وقتادة والنخعي. ويمكن أن يقال على هذا القول ليست بمنسوخة ويكون المعنى أنه خلق لكم هذه الثمار لتنتفعوا بها على وجه مباح، فاتخذتم أنتم منها ما هو محرم عليكم، ويؤكد هذا أنها خبر والأخبار لا تنسخ. وقد ذكر نحو هذا المعنى الذي ذكرته أبو الوفاء ابن عقيل، فإنه قال ليس في الآية ما يقتضي إباحة السكر، إنما هي معاتبة وتوبيخ.
والقول الثاني أن السكر المخل بلغة الحبشة، روى عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. وأخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا إبراهيم ابن عمر قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل قال بنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا محمد بن سعد قال حدثني أبي عن الحسين بن الحسن بن عطية عن أبيه عن عطية قال قال ابن عمر إن الحبشة يسمون الخل السكر، وقال الضحاك هو الخل بلسان اليمن.
والثالث أن السكر الطعم يقال هذا له سكر أي طعم، وأنشدوا: جعلت عنب الأكرمين سكرا، قاله أبو عبيدة فعلى هذين القولين الآية محكمة


Ibn Al-Jawzi offers three arguments that refute the claim but doesn't sound like he is fully convinced:
  1. What verse 16:67 means is that God gave us good fruit and we turned them into bad liquor. It is therefore a blame statement, not an allowance of consuming liquor. Ibn Al-Jawzi said that Abul-Wafaa' ibn Aqeel said the same.
  2. That "sakar" means vinegar in the parlance of Abyssinia (said Ibn Abbaas and Ibn Umar) and Yemen (said Ad-Dhahhaak),
  3. That "sakar" means sweet taste, said Abu-Ubayda.

The second explanation is rather poor because it relies on a foreign language! The third explanation is plausible, because sugar is called in Arabic As-Sukkar, a word that shares its root with Sakar, the word God uses in 16:67.

But the strongest, and most obvious explanation is the first one, and it is a wonder to me why it escaped all those distinguished scholars.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2010, 03:00 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  1. What verse 16:67 means is that God gave us good fruit and we turned them into bad liquor. It is therefore a blame statement, not an allowance of consuming liquor. Ibn Al-Jawzi said that Abul-Wafaa' ibn Aqeel said the same.
...
But the strongest, and most obvious explanation is the first one, and it is a wonder to me why it escaped all those distinguished scholars.

Agreed. I am reading the verse as saying that from the same raw material we can produce good and bad (and good is explicitly qualified as good in the verse), and that this is something for us to ponder.

Why are people so trigger-happy when it comes to abrogation?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 08:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 438-442 in volume 1 of his book. He goes exhaustively through possible meanings of "السكر" and rejects the vinegar and other meanings, settling on alcoholic drinks as the most likely interpretation. He goes on to say that mentioning "السكر" in the verse does not imply permission to drink it, so there is no reason for abrogation. He shows that many scholars rejected the claim, and blames Abd-Alqahir Al-Baghdady for saying that abrogation in this case is agreed upon when it isn't.

This is a case where most of the discussion is directed at the fear of implying something contrary to beliefs (permission to drink in this case) and that seems to drive the desire to abrogate, even if the case does not lend itself to abrogation at all. It is a recurring theme.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 02:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,
Mujaahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Ibrahim (An-Nakh`i),
Abu-Razeen,
Al-Hasan, Ibn Abi-Layla, Az-Zajjaaj, Ibn Qateeba, Qataada,
`Aamir (according to Shu`la),
Ibn `Abbaas and Abu-Ubayd (according to Dr. Faaris),
An-Nahhaas (implied by the interpretation that 16:67 refers to wines of foreginers),
Makki,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi (he even said that the consensus is that 16:67 is abrogated, wrote to Dr. Zayd).

Against:
Abu-`Ubayda,
An-Nahhaas (implied as he interpreted the statements of Ibn Abbaas, etc., to mean elaboration and not abrogation),
Abul-Wafaa' ibn `Aqeel,
`Atiyya and Ad-Dhahhaak (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Muhammad Al-Ghazaali,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ash-Sha`raawi (implied),
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 20 Oct 2010, 20:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 1, page 442 (item 623), asks Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi, "After all what we've shown of the great disagreement between scholars on the interpretation of 16:67 and whether it's been abrogated, where is that consensus he claimed?"

Indeed, it has often happened that scholars would say, "Consensus is ..." when no such consensus was established. It's not that they lied, it's that they may not have read all opinions.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 07:32 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Indeed, it has often happened that scholars would say, "Consensus is ..." when no such consensus was established. It's not that they lied, it's that they may not have read all opinions.

Maybe consensus of those who agreed with them?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 21:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
He (Dr. Zayd) goes exhaustively through possible meanings of "السكر" and rejects the vinegar and other meanings, settling on alcoholic drinks as the most likely interpretation.
...
This is a case where most of the discussion is directed at the fear of implying something contrary to beliefs (permission to drink in this case) and that seems to drive the desire to abrogate, even if the case does not lend itself to abrogation at all.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 150, rejects this claim. He reports two interesting points relating to what you said above:

  • Qataada and others have understood 16:67 as a reminder from God of His favors on man, and it is not possible that God would consider as a favor something that He prohibits! Shu`la calls him on that and draws his attention to the clear distinction God has made in this verse between mentioning intoxication without an adjective while mentioning sustenance with a lauding adjective. Thus, Shu`la concludes, the verse in effect disdains intoxication and removes it from the "good sustenance" category.

  • Shu`la reports that some people he did not name have understood السكر to mean what satiates from hunger. They said the word is derived from a verb that means to block. It is a valid point, but the fact that the word is mentioned in the verse without a qualifier remains significant.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 5:90 abrogate 16:67?
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2013, 21:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his commentary of Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 150 in the footnotes, points out something that Makki said in his book الإيضاح لناسخ القرآن ومنسوخه, pages 332-333. Makki said that 16:67 is an example of a statement of fact that can be abrogated! He rationalizes this by saying that the verse stated that some people have done something and God did not say that such thing is prohibited to us. Therefore, it is allowed. But then God disallows it later.

The flaw in this rationale, IMHO, is his statement "therefore, it is allowed." Abrogation is to negate a command previously given. There was no command given in 16:67! If somebody interpreted 16:67 to mean that God allowed intoxication then it's the fault of the interpreter. There is a difference between tolerating and allowing. Before God prohibited anything, it was tolerated.

_________________
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 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, 12:14

All times are UTC

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