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.  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 24:29 abrogate 24:27?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 03:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote that Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan, Ikrima and Ad-Dhahhaak all said that

was abrogated by


He wrote,

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تدخلوا بيوتا غير بيوتكم" الآية. ذهب بعض المفسرين إلى أنه نسخ من حكم هذا النهي العام حكم البيوت التي ليس لها أهل يستأذنون بقوله تعالى "ليس عليكم جناح أن تدخلوا بيوتا غير مسكونة". أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين بن قريش قال أبنا إبراهيم بن عمر البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن واقد قال حدثني أبي عن يزيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال "يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تدخلوا بيوتا غير بيوتكم حتى تستأنسوا" الآية، ثم نسخ واستثنى من ذلك "ليس عليكم جناح أن تدخلوا بيوتا غير مسكونة فيها متاع لكم"، وهذا مروي عن الحسن وعكرمة والضحاك، وليس هذا نسخ إنما هو تخصيص. والثاني أن الآيتين محكمتان فالاستيذان شرط في الأولى إذا كان للدار أهل، والثانية وردت في بيوت لا ساكن لها والإذن لا يتصور من غير آذن، فإذا بطل الاستئذان لم يكن البيوت الخالية داخلة في الأولى وهذا أصح


He dismisses the abrogation as a specification instead. He also offers an explanation that it doesn't make sense to ask for permission to enter uninhabited houses! Thus, such houses cannot be included in 24:27 and therefore there can be no abrogation. He didn't say whose explanation this was but he said that he finds that the correct explanation and I certainly agree.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:29 abrogate 24:27?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 08:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
What's with this stream of abrogation claims of verses in chapter 24 using later verses in the same chapter?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 05:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Ikrima,
Al-Hasan, Ad-Dhahhaak,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
The majority, according to An-Nahhaas,
Makki (according to Dr. Faaris),
An-Nahhaas (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ash-Shaatibi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Aloosi, Al-Qurtubi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:29 abrogate 24:27?
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 21:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
What's with this stream of abrogation claims of verses in chapter 24

Isn't that particularly ironic? Since the Chapter opens up with the words, "A Chapter We sent down and mandated..." (24:1).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:29 abrogate 24:27?
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2010, 02:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Isn't that particularly ironic? Since the Chapter opens up with the words, "A Chapter We sent down and mandated..." (24:1).

Great catch! If anything in Chapter 24 is abrogated, then 24:1 has to be the first to be abrogated.

I think 24:1 should be mentioned when the abrogation doctrine is attacked. Similar to the discussion in this post about your suggestion of 7:3.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:29 abrogate 24:27?
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2010, 15:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In the footnotes on page 130 of his commentary on Aş-Şa`di's book التبيان في االناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni writes what Hibatullah ibn Salaama actually said. he said, "Isti'naas (getting comfortable) is the permission [to enter] after the greeting." Thus, what the man clearly meant to say when he said that 24:27 was "abrogated" by 24:9 must have been that it was amended by it, since permission can never be given by empty houses!

Scholars have clearly used the word naskh to mean much more than abrogation.

_________________
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.  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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 29 Mar 2024, 02:11

All times are UTC

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