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  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2010, 17:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

was claimed abrogated by the exception in


He dismisses the case saying that exception is not abrogation. Of course it isn't. Here is what he wrote,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "والذين يرمون المحصنات". زعم من لا فهم له من ناقلي التفسير أنها نسخت بالاستثناء بعدها وهو قوله تعالى "إلا الذين تابوا". وقد بينا في مواضع أن الاستثناء لا يكون ناسخا


Actually, this case should not be so quickly dismissed! There are two commands in 24:4,
  1. Flogging of false accusers, and
  2. Banning them forever from bearing witness.

So, the question is: If they repent, should a Muslim judge still apply the flogging punishment and should he reinstate their credibility as witnesses? My humble reply is no. A Muslim judge should apply the punishment and the accuser's credibility as a witness is forever forfeited. Verse 24:5 does not reinstate the credibility of a false witness, it only says that God accepts repentance, thus the accuser is not doomed if he repents. No abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 08:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
I agree that the flogging and banning would still be applicable, and that's why 24:5 says "من بعد ذلك". My reading of the exception in 24:5 is that it refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" not to the punishment. JMHO.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 16:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I agree that the flogging and banning would still be applicable, and that's why 24:5 says "من بعد ذلك". My reading of the exception in 24:5 is that it refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" not to the punishment. JMHO.

Great points. In addition, the Quran often uses the exception article إلا in the sense of "however", "but" or "only." For example,

And

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 or 24:6 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 04:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 329-330, rejected the claim on the basis that exception is not abrogation.

He then explains what the exception applies to. He says that there are three punishments stated in 24:4,
  1. Eighty floggings,
  2. Permanent disqualification from testimony,
  3. Being labeled a deviant.

Dr. Az-Zalmi says that the exception only applies to the first. He says that the Hanafis rule that repentance of a false accuser does not re-qualify him to testify. The majority, however, have ruled that it does.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 30 Jun 2010, 16:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
Az-Zuhri,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
Abu-`Ubayd and Ibn Habeeb (according to Al-Khazraji).

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Ibrahim An-Nakh`i,
Al-Hasan Al-Basri,
Sufyaan Ath-Thawri,
Abu-Haneefa,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Makki,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 30 Jun 2010, 17:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
My reading of the exception in 24:5 is that it refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" not to the punishment. JMHO.

According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 243-245, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Sufyaan Ath-Thawri and Abu-Haneefa all agree with you :) They all said that the exception refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" ("those are the deviant"), not to the punishment. Their argument is that exception always applies to the last thing mentioned.

The majority opinion, however, is that repentance re-qualifies the accuser to be a witness and takes him out of the classification of deviants.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 13:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
My reading of the exception in 24:5 is that it refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" not to the punishment. JMHO.

That is what Makki said too, according to Al-Khazraji. Makki stopped at the word أبدا (forever). It is the accepted interpretation of this type of syntactic ambiguity in Arabic sentences, that exception applies to its closest context.

Al-Khazraji argues that the exception applies to all three clauses. He proves that by quoting a narration that says that after Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, flogged Abu-Bakra (Nafee` ibn Al-Haarith ibn Kilda), for false testimony in an adultery case, he said to him, "If you repent, I'll accept your testimony." Abu-Bakra refused and Umar never accepted his testimony in anything after that.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2010, 14:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I agree that the flogging and banning would still be applicable, and that's why 24:5 says "من بعد ذلك". My reading of the exception in 24:5 is that it refers to "أولئك هم الفاسقون" not to the punishment. JMHO.

Ibn Abbaas, Judge Shurayh ibn Al-Haarith, Al-Hasan, Mugheera ibn Muqsim Adh-Dhabbi, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Muhammad ibn Katheer, Hammaad ibn Salama, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib, Al-Haytham ibn Jameel, Shareek ibn Abdillah, Saalim ibn `Ajlaan Al-Aftas and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer all agree with you! Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 124, quotes them saying that 24:5 provided an exception to 24:4 in that if a false accuser repents, he is no longer labeled "deviant", but his testimony remains disallowed.

But he also quotes other narrations where Ibn Abbaas, Az-Zuhri, Al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, Saalim ibn Abdillah, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Abdillah ibn `Utba Al-Huzhali, Yahya ibn Bakeer, Abdillah ibn Yasaar (Ibn Abi-Nujayh), `Ataa', Taawoos, Mujaahid and Maalik all said that repentance of the false accuser re-allows his testimony. Ibn Salaam agrees.

There is, however, a conflation of the accuser with his collaborating witnesses. Ibn Salaam's agreement is based on a narration by Sa`eed ibn Al-Musaayib that Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, offered Abu-Bakra, a false accuser to repent and recant his accusation. He refused and Umar never again accepted his testimony. Umar also offered repentance to the four witnesses and two did and Umar allowed their testimony afterward.

I think that 24:4 applies to the accuser only, because if two witnesses out of four recanted, then the accuser no longer has four witnesses! Hence, the conditional in 24:4 applies. As to what to do with witnesses who recant, Ibn Salaam said that the majority have said that their subsequent testimonies are allowed. Their argument is that a repenting adulterer's testimony is acceptable. I think that there is a confusion between whether God accepts repentance from sin, however big it may have been, and whether testimony of a repenting sinner should be acceptable. I may be harsh here, but I don't see how the testimony of someone who once deliberately lied under oath can ever be accepted again. If he's done it once before, he may do it again. As lawyers would say, "Goes to credibility, your honor."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:5 abrogate 24:4?
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 23:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
So, the question is: If they repent, should a Muslim judge still apply the flogging punishment and should he reinstate their credibility as witnesses?

Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 90-91, quotes a narration, without attribution or verification, in which Umar ibn Al-Khattaab said to Abu-Bakra, presuambly before he flogged him for false accusation of adultery), "If you wish, I could accept your testimony."

So, I decided to look it up myself. It turns out that what Umar said was, "If you repent, I'd accept your testimony." Narrated by Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib and reported by At-Tahaawi in his book شرح مشكل الآثار (Explaining Problematic Reports)! It is not an authentic narration.

Then Ibn Salaama says that the Hanafi scholars ruled that the testimony of a false accuser of adultery can never be accepted under any circumstances. That is the opinion that is most consistent, IMHO, with the language of verse 24:4.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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 25 Oct 2020, 19:41

All times are UTC

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