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.  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did the Sunna or 5:5 abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2010, 01:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi states that there are two abrogations in 2:173,

He wrote,

الآية السادسة قوله تعالى: "إنما حرم عليكم الميتة والدم" الآية 173 مدنية البقرة 2 فنسخ بالسنة بعض الميتة وبعض الدم بقوله ص أحلت لنا ميتتان ودمان السمك والجراد والكبد والطحال، وقال سبحانه "وما أهل به لغير الله" ثم رخص للمضطر إذ كان غير باغ و لا عاد بقوله تعالى "فلا إثم عليه" اهـ

The two abrogations he asserts are:
  1. Dead animals - some of them were allowed by the Sunna, per the hadeeth that says, "Two dead animals and two bloods were made lawful to us: fish and locust and liver and spleen.
  2. Slaughters made in the name of other than God - allowed for dire necessity by the exception phrase that follows it.

Once again, explanation and/or exception is erroneously called abrogation. Dead fish and locust are exemptions from dead animals, and liver and spleen are not what God means by blood.

Then the license to eat any meat for fear of dying confirms God's grace and is an exception from the prohibition of eating the meat slaughtered in a name other than God's.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 89 (item 815) does not mention the hadeeth (presumably because he rejects the notion that any hadeeth can abrogate any verse), but says that some have claimed that the abrogating here is the exception in the epilogue. He rejects that too since exceptions are not abrogation, because, as Ibn Al-Jawzi put it, with exceptions, both verses can be complied with, while with abrogation, only one of them can be.

However, on page 212 of volume 2, he includes 2:173 in four verses claimed abrogated by

A claim he also rejects. After quoting At-Tabari's opinion, who also rejects the claim, he concludes that this is a case of specification, not abrogation. I think he may have meant exception, i.e., slaughtered meat of the people of the Book is allowed to Muslims, even if the butchers did not mention the name of God before the slaughter.

See also "Did 5:5 abrogate 6:121, 2:173, 5:3 and 16:115?"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2010, 02:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
liver and spleen are not what God means by blood.

That part I never really understood. Regular meat has blood in it, too. It seems to me that prohibition applies to pure blood, but I could be wrong.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2010, 06:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
liver and spleen are not what God means by blood.

That part I never really understood. Regular meat has blood in it, too. It seems to me that prohibition applies to pure blood, but I could be wrong.

In his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 49-52, Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa refutes the claim, first by arguing why the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran, and then by observing that fish is not dead meat until its scent changes; then it becomes forbidden to eat. Also, liver and spleen are not blood; they are liver and spleen! He does not address whether locust is dead meat.

But he also mentions something very important: that the hadeeth is weak, because its narrator, Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zayd, is rejected, said Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the book سبل السلام.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2010, 06:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Ash-Sha`raawi,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Jamaal `Ataaya (implied).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010, 14:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This is the first example Jamaal `Ataaya gives to illustrate his point about the significance of openness of text (طلاقة النص). He discusses this issue in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 385-411. By openness of text, he means the provision of a default framework within which the believer may analyze a given issue. By providing a framework, the believer knows his limitations and by having it open, countless practical problems can fit within it.

Verse 2:173 is one example he gives for this notion. The verse starts by providing the default framework of what not to eat, then ends by providing the framework of how to know when that default does not apply!

A verse that has open text cannot be abrogated; it states a principle and tenet of Islam. Other verses or narrations that seem to some scholars as abrogating, are actually specifying something within the general framework set by the claimed abrogated verse.

IMHO, the hadeeth quoted in the OP, if we concede it's authentic, simply allays the worries of some who may think that fish and locust are dead meat or that liver and spleen are blood; they are not. The hadeeth calls them dead meat and blood as a figure of speech that the Arabs have used.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2010, 02:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Again, under any interpretation, 2:173 is not annulled, hence there is no abrogation. If it were, we would be allowed to eat pork, too, because of the default allowance since 2:173 would have no force.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the Sunna or 5:5 abrogate 2:173?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2011, 03:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Once again, explanation and/or exception is erroneously called abrogation. Dead fish and locust are exemptions from dead animals, and liver and spleen are not what God means by blood.

Sheikh Ash-Sha`raawi, may God bless his soul, offered an explanation. In his book قصص الحيوان في القرآن, pages 50-52, he suggests the reason why eating dead animals is forbidden. He says that an animal that died without slaughter may have died because of a disease. Eating it therefore may transmit the disease to the eater.

Then he offers an explanation why blood is forbidden. He says that blood runs two routes in a body: one route carries waste from the liver and the lungs and another route cleans that up. Eating spilled blood therefore may be eating the dirty blood. That is why a condition of lawful slaughter is that blood comes out of the animal.

He says that fish and locust do not have those two routes of blood except in their heads. When fish and locust are cut, no blood comes out. That is why they are OK to eat even after they have died.

Liver and spleen, though they contain plenty of blood, do not contain any dirty blood. They are self-contained organs that are not part of the blood circulation system. That is why they were excepted from the spilled blood category.

If this is proven, it could be the answer to your comment, Pragmatic,
Pragmatic wrote:
That part I never really understood. Regular meat has blood in it, too. It seems to me that prohibition applies to pure blood, but I could be wrong.

_________________
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.  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 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, 12:21

All times are UTC

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