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 2:283 abrogate 2:282?
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 04:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi states that the command وأشهدوا إذا تبايعتم in

was abrogated by


Once again, the word abrogation is used when the case in fact is a specific ruling for a special situation within the general ruling.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:283 abrogate 2:282?
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 06:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Once again, the word abrogation is used when the case in fact is a specific ruling for a special situation within the general ruling.

Agreed. That seems to be the norm in so many cases.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:283 abrogate 2:282?
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 06:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 94-95, refutes this claim saying that there are two different subjects: The mandate to have witnesses is for buying and selling whether local or on the road, while the allowance of no witnesses is for pawning on the road only.

He propounds the opinions of several scholars:
  • At-Tabari says that the witnesses are a mandate for any sale, local or on the road. And if the sale is not immediate, it must be written down too. He sees no abrogation here because the two rulings are about tow different matters.
  • Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan and Al-Qurtubi say that the witnesses are only recommended.
  • Ibn Abbaas was asked if the debt verse (2:282) was abrogated and he swore it wasn't.
  • Other scholars said that both verses were revealed together and that invalidates any claim of abrogation. He did not name those scholars.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 06:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ash-Sha`bi and Al-Hasan (implied, but both seem to mean by naskh a license rather than an abrogation),
Abu-Sa`eed Al-Khudri and Ibn Zayd (according to Dr. Zayd),
Al-Hakam ibn `Utayba,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (implied),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Jawzi.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas,
Al-Qurtubi (implied),
`Ataa' and Ibrahim An-Nakh`i (according to Ibn Salaam),
Ibn Umar (implied by his practice of always having a witness to trades, quoted by Ibn Salaam),
Ad-Dhahhaak, Ibn Jurayj, Ar-Rabee`, Qataada (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari,
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Al-Qurtubi,
Ibn Al-`Arabi,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Aloosi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:283 abrogate 2:282?
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010, 15:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd rejects this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 177-180 (items 962-971) on the basis of no contradiction. He shows that Ash-Sha`bi and Al-Hasan, who are claimed to have backed up this claim, actually meant that this is a case of license after resolution رخصة بعد عزيمة. He asks this simple logical question: What happens in debts where the two parties do not trust each other? Clearly they have to register the debt in writing. Thus, 2:282 remains valid in this case and that means it was not abrogated!

By the same token, Dr. Zayd asks the question: what about the pawn clause in the verse? Does a pawn abrogate the need to write down the debt? Why was that not discussed? The fact is the pawn is contingent upon unavailability of a debt writer, as may be the case during a travel. So is the relaxing of the requirement to write the debt contingent upon mutual trust.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:283 abrogate 2:282?
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 07:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Mustafa Zayd rejects this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 177-180 (items 962-971) on the basis of no contradiction. He shows that Ash-Sha`bi and Al-Hasan, who are claimed to have backed up this claim, actually meant that this is a case of license after resolution رخصة بعد عزيمة. He asks this simple logical question: What happens in debts where the two parties do not trust each other? Clearly they have to register the debt in writing. Thus, 2:282 remains valid in this case and that means it was not abrogated!

By the same token, Dr. Zayd asks the question: what about the pawn clause in the verse? Does a pawn abrogate the need to write down the debt? Why was that not discussed? The fact is the pawn is contingent upon unavailability of a debt writer, as may be the case during a travel. So, is the relaxing of the requirement to write the debt contingent upon mutual trust.

It seems to me that the exception based on mutual trust applies only to the pawn, not to writing the debt. The only exception to writing the debt (other than on-going business) is travel or lack of a writer. If these conditions are not there, writing the debt is mandatory whether people trust each other or not. IMHO, this is one of the cases where God mandates something that prevents practical problems because it would be awkward or offensive for some people to require it if it wasn't religiously mandated.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


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 28 Mar 2024, 14:52

All times are UTC

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