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  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Was 24:58 abrogated?
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2010, 05:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
As-Suyooti reports that some have said that 24:58 was abrogated but he doesn't say by which verse. This verse is about youngsters and servants having to get permission from adults before entering their private rooms. As-Suyooti says that other scholars have said that 24:58 was not abrogated but that people have neglected complying with it. He agrees that it has not been abrogated.

Here is the verse. I include it here for completion until I find a reference to its abrogator.


It doesn't make sense to me that a mandate be left unfollowed without authorities enforcing it, so I must conclude that either this verse does not mandate, which is my humble view, or that it has indeed been abrogated. But by what?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 24:58 abrogated?
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2010, 07:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me that a mandate be left unfollowed without authorities enforcing it

I am less worried about that part since if it is a mandate, it is in the privacy of people's homes so I don't see how it can be enforced by authorities.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 24:58 abrogated?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 14:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me that a mandate be left unfollowed without authorities enforcing it, so I must conclude that either this verse does not mandate, which is my humble view, or that it has indeed been abrogated. But by what?

As mentioned in this post, Ibn Abbaas has said that the command in 24:58 has been neglected by people. Perhaps that is what As-Suyooti meant when he said that it was abrogated. If so, that's not abrogation; that's people not following orders!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 24:58 abrogated?
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2010, 23:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
As mentioned in this post, Ibn Abbaas has said that the command in 24:58 has been neglected by people. Perhaps that is what As-Suyooti meant when he said that it was abrogated. If so, that's not abrogation; that's people not following orders!

Adding to the list of the modes of abrogation: Abrogation by negligence! It seems that abrogation has become an all-encompassing way to legitimize disobeying verses in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2011, 00:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (quoted by Shu`la, but he clearly meant contingent ruling).

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (implied),
Ash-Sha`bi, Jaabir ibn Abdillah and Ibn Zayd (accroding to Shu`la),
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer (quoted by Dr. Faaris),
Abu-`Ubayd (according to Dr. Faaris),
As-Suyooti,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Muhamamd Al-Khudhari (Bek).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 24:58 abrogated?
PostPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 20:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
As mentioned in this post, Ibn Abbaas has said that the command in 24:58 has been neglected by people. Perhaps that is what As-Suyooti meant when he said that it was abrogated. If so, that's not abrogation; that's people not following orders!

Adding to the list of the modes of abrogation: Abrogation by negligence! It seems that abrogation has become an all-encompassing way to legitimize disobeying verses in the Quran.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 158 in the footnotes, quotes Abu-Ubayd and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer saying that 24:58 was not abrogated but rather neglected. Abu-Abdillah Shu`la quoted Ash-Sha`bi, Jaabir and Ibn Zayd saying the same thing.

Shu`la also adds that what Ibn Abbaas said was that 24:58 was necessary when people did not have doors to their rooms, but when they did, asking permission to enter a room was no longer necessary, therefore the verse is abrogated. Shu`la then says, and I'm not sure if it's his words or he was still quoting Ibn Abbaas, that if people don't have doors again to their rooms, then the verse's mandate comes back.

Well, that is not abrogation. That's contingent ruling. Thus, either Ibn Abbaas or Shu`la used the word naskh to describe a contingent ruling. From what I learned about Ibn Abbaas over the years, it sounds to me that it was he who made that argument and that he was right. Naskh can mean abrogation but can also mean contingent ruling.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 17 Sep 2019, 16:56

All times are UTC

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