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.  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 4:19, 4:22 and 4:23 each abrogate itself?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 19:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This case is about the pre-Islamic practice of marrying women who were previously married to the person's father, or marrying two sisters. Islam forbids that. Here are the verses,


This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about it,

ذكر الآية العاشرة: قوله تعالى "ولا تنكحوا ما نكح آباؤكم من النساء إلا ما قد سلف". هذا كلام محكم عند عامة العلماء، ومعنى قوله "إلا ما قد سلف" أي بعدما قد سلف في الجاهلية فإن ذلك معفو عنه. وزعم بعض من قل فهمه أن الاستثناء نسخ ما قبله. وهذا تخليط لا حاصل له ولا يجوز أن يلتفت إليه من جهتين: الأول أن الاستثناء ليس بنسخ، والثاني أن الاستثناء عائد إلى مضمر تقديره فإن فعلتم عوقبتم إلا ما قد سلف فإنكم لا تعاقبون عليه، فلا معنى للنسخ ههنا.

ذكر الآية الحادية عشر: قوله تعالى "وأن تجمعوا بين الأختين إلا ما قد سلف". وهذه حكمها حكم التي قبلها، وقد زعم الزاعم هناك أن هذه كتلك في أن الاستثناء ناسخ لما قبله وقد بينا رذولة القول


The claim of abrogation that a few have raised is that the exception "except what was before" is an abrogation of the prohibition. Ibn Al-Jawzi correctly points out that exceptions are not abrogation, and that the meaning of "except what was before" means that there is no punishment for those who did that before Islam.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:22 and 4:23 abrogate themselves?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2010, 21:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Did 4:22 and 4:23 abrogate themselves? (emphasis added)
Have these guys even read 2:106 or 16:101?

No abrogation. IMHO, the verses give religious sanctioning to the general principle of a grandfather clause in legislation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 4:19 abrogate itself?
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2010, 04:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi agrees that 4:22 and 4:23 are cases of abrogation by exceptions and adds that the exception in

abrogates the sentence before it. Of course it doesn't. He stated in the same book that the majority of scholars do not regard exceptions as abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:19, 4:22 or 4:23 each abrogate itself?
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2010, 07:21 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Clearly no abrogation, but it is interesting that the last two verses establish the principle of grandfather clauses. This is a very important legislative principle.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 May 2010, 05:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Aş-Şa`di,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
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.  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 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, 15:12

All times are UTC

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