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  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2010, 17:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

was claimed abrogated by


He writes,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة النور. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "الزاني لا ينكح إلا زانية أو مشركة والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك". قال عكرمة: هذه الآية في بغايا كن بمكة أصحاب رايات، وكان لا يدخل عليهن إلا زان من أهل القبلة أو مشرك، فأراد ناس من المسلمين نكاحهن، فنزلت هذه الآية. قال ابن جرير: فعلى هذا يكون المعنى الزاني من المسلمين لا يتزوج امرأة من أولئك البغايا إلا زانية أو مشركة لأنهن كذلك، والزانية من أولئك البغايا لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك. أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال بنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال بنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا هشيم وأبنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال بنا أبو بكر النجاد قال بنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا وهب بن بقية عن هيثم قال أبنا يحيى ابن سعيد عن سعيد بن المسيب في قوله "والزانية لا ينكحها إلا زان أو مشرك" قال: نسختها الآية التي بعدها "وأنكحوا الأيامى منكم". قال الشافعي: القول كما قال ابن المسيب إن شاء الله


He reports that Ikrima explained that the verse was addressing the Muslims who wanted to marry prostitutes. Ibn Jareer agreed and said it then means that Muslim fornicators cannot marry but fornicating or polytheist women.

Sa`eed Ibn Al-Musayyib, may God have been pleased with him, said that the verse was abrogated by 24:32 and Ash-Shaafii agreed.

IMHO, the meaning of 24:3 is: Fornicating Muslim men cannot marry but fornicating Muslim women or fornicating women of the people of the Book, because fornication, as bad a sin as it is, does not annul his Islam and a Muslim cannot marry a polytheist. As for fornicating non-Muslim men, they are not allowed to marry but fornicating non-Muslim women, or polytheist women.

In other words, you have five classes of men:
  1. Chaste Muslim: he cannot marry but a chaste woman who is either Muslim or from the people of the Book,
  2. Fornicating Muslim: he can only marry a fornicating woman who is either Muslim or from the people of the Book,
  3. Chaste Jew or Christian: he can only marry a chaste non-Muslim woman,
  4. Fornicating non-Muslim: he can only marry a fornicating non-Muslim woman, or a polytheist woman, and
  5. Polytheist: he can only marry a fornicating non-Muslim woman, or a polytheist woman.

And you have five classes of women:
  1. Chaste Muslim: she cannot marry but a chaste Muslim man,
  2. Fornicating Muslim: she can only marry a fornicating Muslim man,
  3. Chaste Jew or Christian: she can only marry a chaste man, and
  4. Fornicating Jew or Christian: she can only marry a fornicating non-Muslim man or a polytheist man.
  5. Polytheist: she can only marry a non-Muslim man.

All that said, there is nothing in 24:32, or any other verse for that matter, that alters the injunction in 24:3 in the least. Why is there an assumption that 24:32 refers to fornicating women?! Verse 24:32 simply encourages Muslims to marry chaste Muslim women even if these women are poor, old or slaves. Like I said before, a slave girl is not a fornicator because she had no choice in the matter.

See also this topic which alleges that it is the other way around! That 24:3 abrogated 24:32.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 08:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
a slave girl is not a fornicator because she had no choice in the matter.

Not to mention that this is one of the two sanctioned modes of sexual relations,


so it is definitely not fornication by either party. Unfortunately, I detect in this abrogation claim some confusion between religious honor, on which 24:3 is based, and worldly honor, on which the stature of people in this world is based.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 10 May 2010, 19:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 320-322, propounds a number of very interesting interpretations of 24:3! His conclusion afterward is that 24:3 was not abrogated. Here are the interpretations he quoted:

  • Ibn Katheer said that it's a declarative statement which means "no woman would agree to mate with a fornicator but a fornicating woman or a polytheist woman." And vice versa.
  • Ibn Abbaas, may God have been pleased with him, said the verse does not speak of marriage but of sexual intercourse. Al-Areedh said the narration is authentic and that Mujaahid, Ikrima, Sa`eed in Jabeer, `Urwa ibn Az-Zubayr, Ad-Dhahhaak, Mak-hool, Muqaatil ibn Hayyaan and others agreed.
  • Ibn `Umar, Saalim, Jaabir ibn Zayd, `Ataa', Taawoos, Maalik ibn Anas, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows all said that a man who fornicated with a woman may marry her after she seeks absolution from her having been mated (بعد أن تستبرئ من وطئها).
  • Ash-Shaafi`i said that the right opinion is that of Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib, who said that 24:3 was abrogated.

Al-Areedh's view is similar to mine, namely, that 24:32 is general, since it includes fornicators and chaste women, while 24:3 is specific to fornicators and polytheists. He adds that what is general does not abrogate what was specific. He also says,
لأن الشيئ لاينسخ بعض أفراده وأجزائه، ولأن ماتناوله الخاص متيقن وماتناوله العام مظنون

Translation: Abrogation is not to parts or elements of a ruling. What is specified is certain while what is general is not.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 10 May 2010, 20:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib,
Ibn Umar, Saalim, Jaabir ibn Zayd, `Ataa', Taawoos, Maalik ibn Anas, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows (according to Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Amr (implied, according to Nada),
Ash-Shaafi`i,
Al-Jabaa'i (who said the abrogating is consensus!, according to `Ataaya),
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi (who said the abrogating is consensus!, according to Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Abul-`Abbaas Al-Hasani (implied, per Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
An-Nahhaas,
As-Suyooti.

Against:
Ali ibn Abi-Taalib (by his ruling in an adultery case, per Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abu-Bakr and Umar (by their rulings, per Haani Taahir),
Ibn Mas`ood and Jaabir ibn Abdillah (implied by their allowance of marrying the woman one has fornicated with),
Ibn Abbaas, Ikrima, Mujaahid, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, `Urwa ibn Az-Zubayr, Ad-Dhahhaak, Mak-hool, Muqaatil ibn Hayyaan,
Ibn `Umar, Saalim, Jaabir ibn Zayd, `Ataa', Taawoos, Maalik ibn Anas,
Al-Hasan (implied),
Mujaahid, Ash-Sha`bi,
Ibrahim An-Nakh`i,
Qataada, Muqaatil (according to Haani Taahir citing Ibn Katheer exegesis),
Abu-Haneefa and his fellows,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ahmad ibn Hanbal,
Ibn Qudaama (who, like Ibn Hanbal, ruled that marriage to an adulteress is invalid until she repents),
Hanash ibn Al-Mu`tamir,
Al-Asfahaani,
Ibn Katheer,
Ash-Shawkaani,
Ar-Raazi,
Ibn Al-Qayyim (quoted by Nada),
Az-Zamakhshari (according to Dr. Zayd),
Shihaab-ud-Deen Al-Aloosi, Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi, Abul-A`la Al-Mawdoodi and Sayyid Qutb (implied), all quoted by Haani Taahir,
Aş-Şa`di,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn, Al-Masoor Billah and Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Al-Hasan aka Al-Haadi (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Shah Waluillah Dehlvi,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Ali-Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Mahmood Shaltoot (implied, quoted by Nada),
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Haani Taahir,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 22 May 2010, 07:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
IMHO, the meaning of 24:3 is: Fornicating Muslim men cannot marry but fornicating Muslim women or fornicating women of the people of the Book, because fornication, as bad a sin as it is, does not annul his Islam and a Muslim cannot marry a polytheist.

That has always puzzled me, especially that the wording of 24:3 uses the word "polytheist" (not people of the book, and not fornicating people of the book). On page 143 of his book, Nada quotes a clever argument by Ibn Al-Qayyem. He says that marrying a fornicator is forbidden on Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim who believes in this and nonetheless marries a fornicator is not legally married and therefore he becomes a fornicator himself. If he does not believe in this then, by virtue of this disbelief, he is a polytheist. I can's say I totally agree, but it is a "Shaarway"-clever argument.

BTW, Nada quotes a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) on page 145 saying that the "the lashed fornicator does not marry except someone like him" and that confirms a point I think you mentioned in another thread (since I can't find it in this thread) that the prohibition relates to someone convicted of fornication not just someone who fornicated.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 30 May 2010, 01:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Nada quotes a clever argument by Ibn Al-Qayyem. He says that marrying a fornicator is forbidden on Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim who believes in this and nonetheless marries a fornicator is not legally married and therefore he becomes a fornicator himself. If he does not believe in this then, by virtue of this disbelief, he is a polytheist.

On page 337 of his book, Ihab mentions an argument along the lines of Ibn Al-Qayyem's but reverses the cause and effect. He says that if a Muslim marries a polytheist, the marriage is not valid and therefore he is fornicating. However, 24:3 is talking about someone who already fornicated and addresses his marriage options, stating that marrying polytheists is among those options. I don't see how Ihab's argument fits.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 05:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 328-329, says that some scholars that have been mentioned in the exegesis books of Ar-Raazi, At-Tabari and Az-Zamakhshari and As-Saawi's commentary on the margin of Al-Jalaalyn's, have said that the abrogating verse is

Az-Zalmi says that Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi and Al-Qurtubi rejected that and so does he. He says that "whomever you like" is subject to the other verses that restrict those choices, such as 24:3.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 06:28 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Az-Zalmi says that Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi and Al-Qurtubi rejected that and so does he. He says that "whomever you like" is subject to the other verses that restrict those choices, such as 24:3.

Otherwise, you would be able to marry someone else's wife, your daughter, etc. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 21:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali brings up a good point in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 159-165, as he refutes this claim. He says that the Li`aan hearing ends with breaking up the marriage and that's evidence that adultery annuls marriage. Thus, 24:3 is not abrogated.

I didn't know that Li`aan ends a marriage. I thought it causes one of the two to be punished. I wonder what the basis for divorce is? I can see that if the charge is not proven, the man is punished and discredited but where is it said that the marriage cannot go on?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 00:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I didn't know that Li`aan ends a marriage. I thought it causes one of the two to be punished. I wonder what the basis for divorce is? I can see that if the charge is not proven, the man is punished and discredited but where is it said that the marriage cannot go on?

My understanding is that if the li`an protocol is completed (the man taking the oath and the woman taking the counter oath), then neither is punished but the marriage ends. Since one of the two must be guilty of a terrible crime towards the other, and both of them know who that one is (although we don't), it seems pretty hopeless to continue the marriage under these circumstances. I do not know whether the financial consequences follow divorce rules or khul` rules (or some other rules), though.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 07 Dec 2019, 17:03

All times are UTC

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