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 9:103 or 9:60 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 05:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that

has abrogated the sentence ويسألونك ماذا ينفقون قل العفو (And they ask you what they should spend. Say, "The excess [beyond needs]").


In fact, 2:219 simply instructs that Muslims should spend from the excess of their wealth, because basic necessities have first priority. 9:103 does not change that; it simply states that the Prophet (PBUH) should collect alms from the believers. Perhaps Ibn Hazm thought that the word العفو (excess) in 2:219 implies a voluntary action, while the word خذ (Take) in 9:103 implies a mandate. There is actually no reason to believe that 2:219 is speaking of the Zakah. The language is general and therefore could very well be speaking of charity in general.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 06:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pretty weak case. Does he explain his position or just state it?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 05:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Pretty weak case. Does he explain his position or just state it?

He just stated it. Dr. As-Saqqa also quotes him without further reasoning. He quickly dismisses the case based on what the word العفو means, namely, the excess that one does not mind paying. He says that Al-Qurtubi in his exegesis said that some people said it was not abrogated and that there are dues in money other than the Zakah.

I don't understand why this is hard for some to see. 2:219 speaks of voluntary spending, not of charity, voluntary or otherwise, while 9:103 mandates a charity be collected. Two different expenditures.

Al-Jabri confirms this understanding in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 44, and says that the Prophet (PBUH) continued to emphasize 2:219. For instance when he said, "Kudos to him who spent the excess of his wealth and withheld the excess of his tongue!" I could not find this hadeeth though. BTW, Al-Jabri says that the claim is that 9:60 was the abrogating verse, so when a writer refers to "the Zakah verse", he may mean 2:219 or 9:60.

But Al-Jabri seems to lean toward the opinion that the spending referred to in 2:219 is obligatory, or at least highly encouraged. He mentions Ibn Hazm's interpretation of the famous hadeeth "The Muslim is the brother of every Muslim; he does not wrong him and does not fail him." Ibn Hazm wrote that if a Muslim sees his Muslim brother in need of food or clothes and he can help him but does not, then he failed him."

The early Muslims also understood the high importance of spending excess wealth, so much so that many of them wanted to give away their money! People like Sa`d ibn Maalik and Ka`b ibn Maalik. That, of course, is the opposite of what 2:219 says and Sahnoon stated that as quoted by As-Suyooti in his book الإكليل, page 25. And the Prophet (PBUH) discouraged that and limited giveaways to a third of one's wealth.

The Prophet (PBUH) also regulated the receiving end! He said to Hakeem ibn Hazzaam, who begged for money and was given it and begged again then again and was given, he said to him, "O Hakeem! Money is sweet. He who takes it from one who is happy to give it, it will be blessed. But he who takes it from one who is reluctant to give it, it will not be blessed. He will be like one who eats but is never satiated. The upper hand (the giver) is better than the lower hand (the receiver)!"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 05:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (in one report) and Ad-Dhahhaak,
As-Suddi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Al-Mansoor Billah (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (in another reports, per Dr. Faaris),
Qataada and Taawoos (according to Dr. Faaris),
Mujaahid (implied),
Al-Hasan Al-Basri,
An-Nahhaas (leaning),
Ibn Al`Arabi (quoted by Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Asfahaani, Ar-Raazi (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
At-Tabari,
Muhammad Abduh and M. Rasheed Ridha,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 07:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Among the arguments Dr. Az-Zalmi uses to refute this case in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 150-153, is this:
Dr. Az-Zalmi wrote:
Where is the contradiction between voluntary charity and the Zakah? Why is there for the prayer voluntary options (Nawaafil), for fasting voluntary options and for pilgrimage voluntary options, but not for the Zakah voluntary options?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 or 9:60 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2010, 14:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd gives this claim quite a space in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 163-167 (items 935-944). He rejects the claim, but not before he enumerates the many interpretations that have been offered in the literature of what the word العفو means. I'll summarize what he wrote here because it's quite informative and beneficial to know.

  • It means excess money. This was narrated by Ibn Abbaas (two weak narrations), Qataada, `Ataa', Al-Hasan, As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd.

  • It means money that can be given away without second thought. This was narrated by Ibn Abbaas (disconnected narration) and Taawoos. Dr. Zayd does not agree with them, because, he says, the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed giving up to one third of one's wealth to charity.

  • It means in moderation, i.e., neither in stinginess nor in extravagance. This was narrated by Al-Hasan and `Ataa'.

  • It means whatever they give, little or much. This was narrated by Ibn Abbaas (a weak narration).

  • It means the favored property. This was narrated by Ar-Rabee` and Qataada.

  • It means the mandatory alms (Zakah). This was narrated by Mujaahid.

  • Ibn Al-`Arabi explained the meaning of the word linguistically as one of the following:
    • Giving away, without recompense,
    • Dropping or skipping, as in 2:286,
    • Abundance. The Arabs have described plants that have grown tall as عفا الزرع,
    • Disappearance. The Arabs have described houses that are no longer there as عفت الديار,
    • Request. The Arabs have called beggars عفاة.

Dr. Zayd favors the first explanation, i.e., excess money and so do I. He backs up his choice with the many hadeeths of the Prophet (PBUH), in which he disliked charity that burdens the donor or deprives his family.

Then Dr. Zayd discusses Ibn Abbaas's and As-Suddi's claim that the Zakah verse, 9:60, is the abrogating here. He wonders why they said that since 2:219 clearly does not mandate anything while the Zakah verse does. The mandated does not abrogate the voluntary. Dr. Zayd concludes that the best interpretation is that of At-Tabari. Namely, that 2:219 simply answers the question asked, by showing what kinds of spending is liked by God and what is not.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:103 or 9:60 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 20:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In arguing for this claim, Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 35-36, explains that Muslims understood العفو in 2:219 as everything beyond their daily requirement for living! And for harvest, they took it to mean what is beyond their sustenance for a year. That was hard on them and 9:60 came to relieve them and to abrogate their practice.

Clearly what 9:103 abrogated, if it abrogated anything, was that wrong understanding. It restored the word to its proper meaning, which is: excess that a person would not miss. Giving so much that it hurts is not what the word means!

_________________
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 49 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, 17:59

All times are UTC

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