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,
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:
- The word النكاح was never mentioned in the Quran to mean anything but marriage!
- 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."