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
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 01 Jan 2011, 06:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
"The flogged fornicator does not marry but one like him," (reported by Abu-Daawood and Ibn Hanbal)

I think this pins down the scope of 24:3, as discussed in previous posts. A convicted fornicator is the subject of 24:3 as it is indeed the subject of 24:2 before it. This may be the cause for a lot of difference of opinions about what the ruling is, since a fornicator who has not been convicted (but nonetheless is a fornicator) would be acceptable as a spouse to a non-fornicator according to this interpretation. I don't see a problem with this, since the goal of the ruling may be to deter fornication when people see that those who are known to be fornicators cannot be accepted in marriage by society. I have heard others add "famous for fornication" (e.g., prostitutes) to "convicted fornicator" which would accommodate the case of Inaq and fall under the same principle.

Quote:
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.

Pregnancy may be the decisive factor here, as there will be a child living in the household who is not the man's child and is a reminder of the adultery. The mandatory separation may be to avoid this situation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 13:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa refutes this case, very tersely, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهيمه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 57. He says that the pro-abrogation scholars have concluded that 24:32 allows marriage for fornicators (!) after it has been disallowed by 24:3.

Where in 24:32 are fornicators mentioned? And doesn't 24:3 also mention marriage? So, where is the contradiction?

Dr. Mustafa's terse refutation argument is that 24:3 speaks about mating, not marriage. I beg to differ, the word used means marriage and it is the same word used throughout the Quran and the Hadeeth.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 66, rejects this claim and agrees with Ibn Hanbal, who ruled that an adulterer may not marry a chaste woman, or should not. He says that the words وحرم ذلك (and that has been prohibited) refer to adultery and polytheism.

I respectfully disagree with the allowance, albeit with distaste. I believe the words above clearly refer to marriage.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2020, 18:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 160-165, Al-Ghaali propounds the arguments refuting this claim of abrogation,
  • Abu-Dawood and At-Tirmizi reported that Marthad ibn Abi-Marthad had a prostitute girlfriend in Mecca named Inaaq who was Muslim. He asked the Prophet (PBUH) one day if he could marry her. The Prophet didn't answer him until 24:2 was revealed and then he answered him "Don't marry her!" This proves that the cause for prohibition in her case was not polytheism but fornication.
  • Ibn Katheer and Ash-Shawkaani leaned toward non-abrogation and said that the purpose of 24:2 is to discourage the chaste believers from marrying fornicators even if the fornicators were Muslim.
  • Ibn Hanbal, in his juristic school, rules that marriage between a chaste man and a fornicating woman is invalid and marriage between a chaste woman and a fornicating man is also invalid. But if the fornicator repents, then they may marry the chaste.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 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, 21:40

All times are UTC

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