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  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:60 abrogate 51:19 and 70:24-25?
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2010, 20:33 
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 Zakah verse,

He writes,

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ من سورة الذرايات. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "وفي أموالهم حق للسائل والمحروم". الحق ها هنا النصيب وفيه قولان: الأول أنه ما يصلون به رحما أو يقرون به ضيفا أو يحملون به كلا أو يغنون به محروما وليس بالزكاة، قاله ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. والثاني أنه الزكاة، قاله قتادة وابن سيرين. وقد زعم قوم أن هذه الآية اقتضت وجوب إعطاء السائل والمحروم فذلك منسوخ بالزكاة. والظاهر أنها حث على التطوع ولا يتوجه نسخ


He refutes it saying that the verse encourages Muslims to voluntarily give charity to the beggar and the deprived.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 176, does not take sides on this claim but reports that Al-Hasan and An-Nakh`i both opined that the "right" mentioned in this verse is other than the Zakah, but that people have neglected it. Shu`la concludes that their opinion means no abrogation. I don't know how he made that conclusion. I don't know how they made theirs and I wonder how can a right be neglected by people and neither God nor His Messenger say anything about it!

Al-Khazraji reports in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 668, that it was Ad-Dhahhaak who made that claim. He adds that An-Nahhaas and Makki reported a refuting opinion that 51:19 is a recommendation, not a mandate. I don't see how that can be when the verse says it's a right for the beggar and the deprived. Al-Khazraji makes the same claim in pages 736-737 about


Don't the categories of the deserving of alms include the beggar and the deprived? Both are either poor or needy. So, the Zakah verse extended the scope of the deserving of charity. The added categories, therefore, mean a new command. It would be abrogation if it removed either or both of the categories specified in 51:19. Besides, Verse 51:19 did not say that those were the only two categories deserving charity.

Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 50-52, rejects this claim, but does so because he believes that the right of the beggar and the deprived is beyond the Zakah, which may not be enough to fulfill the needs of the needy. He quotes Ibn Hazm saying that he who sees a fellow Muslim in need of food or clothing and is able to help him but doesn't, that he has not practiced required mercy.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 18:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
Ad-Dhahhaak,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Al-Jabri),
Ibn Salaama (who said the abrogating was 9:103).

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (implied),
Qataada, Ibn Seereen (implied),
Zayd ibn Aslam (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
Al-Hasan and An-Nakh`i (according to Shu`la),
An-Nahhaas (implied, according to Al-Khazraji),
Makki (implied by Al-Khazraji and confirmed by Dr. Faaris),
Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri (implied, according to Al-Jabri),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Fathi Uthmaan (implied, referenced by Al-Jabri),
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 abrogate 51:19?
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2011, 03:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 117, agrees that 51:19 was abrogated by the "Zakah verse", but in the footnotes he says that the Zakah verse is

That is different from what all other scholars have said was the Zakah verse, which they identified as 9:60.

So, let's look at Ibn Salaama's unique claim. Does 9:103 cancel anything stated in 51:19? No! Verse 51:19 says that there is a right for the beggars and the deprived in the wealth of the believers, while verse 9:103 orders the Prophet (PBUH) to take a charity portion from the believer's wealth that would purify them. Thus, 9:103 gives the order to deduct the right specified in 51:19, so where is the need to claim abrogation?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Consequences
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2011, 05:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 50-52, discusses the consequences of accepting this claim, which he rejects. He highlights some unique benevolent aspects of Islam that were the result of 70:24-25!

  • The ruling that a ransom is due on a town where a person dies of hunger because nobody would feed him, regardless of whether the townspeople paid the Zakah!
  • Udhia (sacrificial meat) is ruled obligatory on whoever can afford it, according to Abu-Haneefa.
  • Room and board to guests, for three nights is a most emphasized Sunna.
  • Conciliation of the hearts of the deprived such that they do not become envious of the rich.
  • Public generosity, such as hanging bunches of dates in the mosque for whoever is hungry to take for free.
  • Hostels and guest houses, financed and maintained by endowments.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 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