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.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2010, 15:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani, makes a number of good points on pages 127-130 of his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, as he refutes this claim:

  • Scholars who made the claim have based it on interpreting the word نكاح as sexual intercourse. He says that's incorrect, because the word means two things: marriage contract and sexual intercourse. To limit the word to the latter is therefore unwarranted.

  • All narrations used as evidence to support this claim are weak, some unrecognized. One such narration was about marrying prostitutes. Another, reported by An-Nasaa'i and Abu-Daawood, says that a man asked the prophet (PBUH) what to do with a loose wife; the prophet told him to divorce her. He said to him that he loved her. The Prophet (PBUH) is claimed to have told him to "enjoy" her. This narration is rated "weak" by Abu-AbdirRahmaan, "not strong" by Abdul-Kareem and "unrecognized" by Ibn Hanbal.

  • People came to Ali ibn Abi-Taalib, may God have been pleased with him, concerning a woman who committed adultery after her marriage and before the marriage was consummated. Ali flogged her 100 lashes and deported her to Karbilaa' and did not give her her dowry. After she came back, he handed her over to her husband and said to him, "Your wife. If you will, divorce her, or if you will, keep her." Reported by As-Siyaaghi in his book الروض النضير and narrated by Ibn Wahb and Kulthoom ibn Jabr.

  • Since Li`aan results in separation, and it is entirely based on unconfirmed charge of adultery, all the more reason that certainty of adultery would be cause for disallowing marriage.

  • Marthad Al-Ghanawi asked the Prophet (PBUH), "May I marry `Inaaq?" She was a known prostitute. The Prophet was silent for a bit and then 24:3 was revealed. He answered him, "Don't marry her." Reported by At-Tirmizhi, An-Nasaa'i, Abu-Daawood and Abdul-Barr in his book الاستيعاب, volume 3, pages 441-442.

  • The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "The flogged adulterer shall not marry but one like him." Narrated by Abu-Hurayra and reported by Abu-Daawood and Al-Haakim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 04:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir discusses and refutes this claim on pages 115-120 of his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان. He makes a couple of good points,

  • Though many have claimed 24:3 abrogated, there is no agreement on what abrogated it! Some, such as Al-Jabaa'i, said consensus abrogated it. Taahir asks, "How can that be when Abu-Bakr, Umar and Ali all enforced 24:3?" How can there be consensus that contradicts their rulings?! Also, if they enforced it, how can anybody say it's been abrogated?

  • A number of scholars, such as Al-Aloosi, Al-Mawdoodi and Sayyid Qutb have understood the verse to be a statement of abomination rather than a command of prohibition. That is, no true believer will want to marry a fornicator.

    I don't see how that can possibly be a valid interpretation, when the verse ends with the words وحرم ذلك على المؤمنين (and this has been prohibited to the believers).

  • Because of the disagreement about the interpretation of this verse and whether it was abrogated, scholars have differed a lot about the conditions for a valid marriage contract!

Taahir cites a couple of relevant references on this case:

روح المعاني في تفسير القرآن العظيم والسبع المثاني، شهاب الدين الألوسي، دار الفكر، بيروت، ١٩٨٣م
تفسير سورة النور، أبو الأعلى المودودي، دار الفكر، بيروت

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 06:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • Though many have claimed 24:3 abrogated, there is no agreement on what abrogated it!

This is the essence of what I discussed earlier. People don't know what to make of 24:3, so generic abrogation seems to be an easy way out. Never mind that they cannot identify a text that actually annuls the parts in 24:3 that they don't know what to make of.

Failure to understand a verse is one thing. Claiming that if we don't understand it then it must be abrogated is giving ourselves more credit than the Quran itself.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 18:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I don't have a good explanation for the specifics that are articulated in the verse, but that doesn't faze me. There is a good explanation, but I haven't found it yet (nor did any of the scholars, at least not to my satisfaction FWIW).

Since it is so clear to me, and I actually am puzzled by why it wasn't clear to others, I figured that if I draw a Venn diagram or set up a decision table, it may become as clear to others as it is to me, so here is my humble attempt to put it all together in a decision table,
Image

This is the only logical deduction from the following four principles set in the Quran:
  1. Muslim men can marry Muslim women, or women from the People of the Book, but not polytheist women, per

    And


  2. Muslim women can only marry Muslim men, per

  3. Adulterers can only marry adulteresses or polytheist women, per 24:3.

  4. Adulteresses can only marry adulterers or polytheist men, per 24:3.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 03:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
This is a nice and complete analysis of what I also believe to be the rulings regarding who can and cannot marry whom. The problem at the center of the abrogation claim is that the wording of 24:3 unambiguously states a case that does not conform to these rulings. You alluded to this:

Linguistic wrote:
  • Adulterers can only marry adulteresses or polytheist women, per 24:3.
  • Adulteresses can only marry adulterers or polytheist men, per 24:3.

An option for a Muslim fornicator, male or female, is to marry a polytheist per the wording of 24:3. Even if 'polytheist' here means only people of the book, this would still have a Muslim woman marry a non-Muslim. That is explicit in the verse. There is no way around it.

IMHO, this is the reason why people resort to abrogation to circumvent this dilemma, but they do not have a Quranic verse that was revealed later that annuls this ruling, which would be required for the abrogation claim to hold. Also, there is the question of whether this ruling was applied in practice before it was abrogated, something that many scholars require in an abrogation claim.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 03:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The problem at the center of the abrogation claim is that the wording of 24:3 unambiguously states a case that does not conform to these rulings.
...
An option for a Muslim fornicator, male or female, is to marry a polytheist per the wording of 24:3. Even if 'polytheist' here means only people of the book, this would still have a Muslim woman marry a non-Muslim. That is explicit in the verse. There is no way around it.

I respectfully disagree. The wording must be taken in conjunction with the wording in other verses; it cannot be taken alone. In the words of Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi, the basis in the verses of the Quran that specify a ruling is اتصال جملها وانتظام عقدها (the continuation of its sentences and the lining-up of its beads) :)

This is a case of two Venn diagram circles intersecting. A Muslim fornicator does not have the option to marry a polytheist because of the explicit prohibition in 2:221 and a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim because of the explicit prohibition in 60:10. That is why I highlighted those two situations in the footnotes under the decision table.

If we follow your argument, then the wording of any verse that are general or unlimited legitimizes claims of abrogation by verses that specify or limit them. That is one of the pitfalls that lead many scholars to conclude abrogation when in fact the "abrogating" verses simply clarified the ambiguity, corrected the misunderstanding and completed the ruling.

One observation that may be made from the decision table is that non-Muslims have more choices in marriage partners than Muslims do. That may seem unfair. But it is fair, because in the eyes of God, Islam is a dignified status. Consider,

And

The latter confirms why the apparent generality in 24:3 does not apply to Muslims ;-)

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 03:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I respectfully disagree. The wording must be taken in conjunction with the wording in other verses; it cannot be taken alone. This is a case of two Venn diagram circles intersecting. A Muslim fornicator does not have the option to marry a polytheist because of the explicit prohibition in 2:221 and a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim because of the explicit prohibition in 60:10.
Could you please point out any application of the ruling involving polytheists in 24:3. Any situation at all where that specific ruling as stated in 24:3 affects what we should do.

Quote:
If we follow your argument, then the wording of any verse that are general or unlimited legitimizes claims of abrogation by verses that specify or limit them. That is one of the pitfalls that lead many scholars to conclude abrogation when in fact the "abrogating" verses simply clarified the ambiguity, corrected the misunderstanding and completed the ruling.
I maintain that this is not my argument. Other verses can indeed limit or expand the ruling of a verse. They cannot, however, annul the ruling, i.e., render it completely inapplicable. That would be abrogation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2010, 19:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd lists this claim among those famous for being abrogated but are not. He refutes the claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 282-288 (items 1185-1196).

He starts out saying that Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi stated that consensus is to allow a Muslim to marry a fornicator! How can it be that people agree to the opposite of what God says unambiguously and emphasizes with a nominal statement command?

It's because Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib ruled that the verse is abrogated. That is the reason Ash-Shaafi`i went along with the claim.

Then Dr. Zayd quotes a hadeeth about a man named Marthad who wanted to marry a prostitute named Inaaq. He asked the permission of the Prophet (PBUH). The Prophet (PBUH) did not give him an immediate answer, and when 24:3 was revealed, he told Marthad, "An adulterer does not marry but an adulteress or a polytheist woman, and an adulteress does not marry but an adulterer or a polytheist man. Do NOT marry her!"

How can the matter be any clearer? God emphatically says no. The Prophet (PBUH) says no, but people say yes!!

At-Tabari explained why those people said yes. They interpreted النكاح in the verse as coitus, not as marriage. Some of those who said so were Ikrima (attributing to Ibn Abbaas), Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Mujaahid and Ibn Zayd. At-Tabari chose that opinion, because...get this...a Muslim cannot marry a polytheist, but the verse bundles adulterers with polytheists!

Is that what puzzles you too, Pragmatic?, when you said,
Pragmatic wrote:
An option for a Muslim fornicator, male or female, is to marry a polytheist per the wording of 24:3. Even if 'polytheist' here means only people of the book, this would still have a Muslim woman marry a non-Muslim. That is explicit in the verse. There is no way around it.

The choice between adulterer and polytheist is there to cover non-Muslims too. In other words, the verse declares that the law of God forbids adulterers of any religion to marry chaste people, but they may marry polytheists. Muslims, however, as stated before in 2:221, cannot marry polytheists.

Az-Zamakhshari, in his exegesis الكشاف, volume 2, page 301, criticizes At-Tabari's approved interpretation with two obvious arguments:
  1. The word النكاح was never mentioned in the Quran to mean anything but marriage!
  2. If the word meant coitus, then the verse is saying, "An adulterer does not commit adultery except with an adulteress!" Isn't that ridiculously redundant?

Al-Aloosi used the same logic in his book روح المعاني, volume 6, page 12 and rejected that interpretation. Dr. Zayd agrees and quotes this poem,
وتجتنب الأُسُود وُرُود ماء ... إذا كان الكلاب وَلَغْنَ فيه

Translation: Lions avoid approaching a water if dogs have stepped in it!

Dr. Zayd also agrees with me that there is nothing in 24:32 that contradicts 24:3 and explains that the word الأيامى means unmarried people. That's a generality and 24:3 specifies the exception: adulterers. 24:32 simply encourages a Muslim society to get all unmarried people married. That does not mean that the exception of adulterers has become void. The question to ask is: Can 24:3 and 24:32 be complied with together? If the answer is yes, then there is no cause to claim abrogation. The answer of course is yes. The two verses together specify the following consistent ruling,

"A Muslim society should always try to get unmarried Muslims married. That said, adulterers and fornicators are not to marry chaste people; they can only marry adulterers and fornicators like them. Those of them who are not Muslim may alternatively marry polytheists. That is the law of God."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2010, 21:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Nada rejects this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, pages 142-146. Some of the interesting points he mentions that have not been mentioned above are,

  • Imaam Ibn Al-Qayyim was vehemently against marriage to an adulteress. He wrote in his famous book زاد المعاد من هدي خير العباد, (my translation),
    Ibn Al-Qayyim wrote:
    As for marriage to an adulteress, God, may He be sanctified and exalted, has made it clear in Chapter 24 that it is forbidden. He said that whoever marries her is either an adulterer or a mushrik (one who associates others with God in worship). If he does not abide by God's order and believe that it is obligatory on him, then he is mushrik! If he believes, but contradicts it, then he is an adulterer!

  • Hadeeths that appear contradictory have been cited. The hadeeth of Marthad Al-Ghanawi, about marrying the prostitute `Inaaq, mentioned in this post, as well as others, such as that by Abu-Hurayra quoting the Prophet (PBUH) saying, "The flogged fornicator does not marry but one like him," (reported by Abu-Daawood and Ibn Hanbal) imply that marriage to an adulteress is forbidden. A hadeeth reports that the Prophet (PBUH) separated a wife from her husband when it was determined that she got pregnant by adultery. That confirms the issue, and adds an extension to it, namely, that adultery is cause for mandatory divorce.

    However, a hadeeth narrated by Umar ibn Al-Aħwaş and reported by Ibn Maajah and At-Tirmizhi suggests that a man may remain married to his wife who committed adultery if she repents.

    Ash-Shawkaani, in his book نيل الأوطار, volume 6, pages 144-146, reconciles the hadeeths by saying that initiating a marriage to an adulteress is forbidden, but continuing a marriage with an adulteress is permissible. I'm not sure about that, because of the event when the Prophet (PBUH) separated a wife from her husband when it was determined that she got pregnant by adultery. Nada quotes Ibn Al-Qayyim saying that, but does not mention the credentials of the narration. I tried to look for that narration, but so far no luck.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2011, 06:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Is that what puzzles you too, Pragmatic?, when you said,
Pragmatic wrote:
An option for a Muslim fornicator, male or female, is to marry a polytheist per the wording of 24:3. Even if 'polytheist' here means only people of the book, this would still have a Muslim woman marry a non-Muslim. That is explicit in the verse. There is no way around it.

The choice between adulterer and polytheist is there to cover non-Muslims too. In other words, the verse declares that the law of God forbids adulterers of any religion to marry chaste people, but they may marry polytheists. Muslims, however, as stated before in 2:221, cannot marry polytheists.

This would be a way to reconcile 24:3, but I'll be honest with you I cannot see this as a valid interpretation because of the end of the verse "and this was forbidden on the believers." IMHO, this makes it clear that the subjects of 24:3 are Muslims, not including non-Muslims, since the latter were never described as "believers" in the Quran.

However, my dilemma has nothing to do with the abrogation claim, precisely for the reason you mentioned: There is no abrogating verse that annuls the part that is causing the dilemma.

_________________
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.  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 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 28 Mar 2024, 12:20

All times are UTC

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