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  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 15:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This case deals with whom can testify or be a witness.


is claimed to have been abrogated by


It obvious to me that the contexts of the two verses are different, therefore it is quite possible that the rules of who can be a witness may be different in each case? 5:106 deals with a will while 65:2 deals with divorce. On that basis alone, there is no abrogation.

Furthermore, the case in 5:106 allows for the possibility that people who witnessed the will of a dying Muslim, may not be the most reliable people. The dying Muslim may not have had time to summon two reliable witnesses! The situation is different in the case of divorce, the husband can summon two reliable witnesses whenever he wants, therefore 65:2 forbids him from calling less than reliable witnesses.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 19:42 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It is obvious to me that the contexts of the two verses are different, therefore it is quite possible that the rules of who can be a witness may be different in each case? 5:106 deals with a will while 65:2 deals with divorce. On that basis alone, there is no abrogation.

Furthermore, the case in 5:106 allows for the possibility that people who witnessed the will of a dying Muslim, may not be the most reliable people. The dying Muslim may not have had time to summon two reliable witnesses! The situation is different in the case of divorce, the husband can summon two reliable witnesses whenever he wants, therefore 65:2 forbids him from calling less than reliable witnesses.

Totally agree. While they are at it, why don't they abrogate


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 01:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi says about this case in his book نواسخ القرآن,


ذكر الآية التاسعة: قوله تعالى "يا أيها الذين آمنوا شهادة بينكم إذا حضر أحدكم الموت حين الوصية اثنان ذوا عدل منكم أو آخران من غيركم"، الإشارة بهذا إلى الشاهدين الذين يشهدان على الموصي في السفر. والناس في قوله "ذوا عدل منكم" قائلان:
الأول: من أهل دينكم وملتكم. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ قال أبنا أبو الفضل بن خيرون وأبو طاهر الباقلاوي قالا أبنا أحمد بن كامل قال حدثني محمد بن سعد قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني عمي عن أبيه عن جده عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "ذوا عدل منكم" أي من أهل الإسلام، وهذا قول ابن مسعود وشريح وسعيد بن المسيب وسعيد بن جبير ومجاهد وابن سيرين والشعبي والنخعي وقتادة وأبي مخلد ويحيى بن يعمر والثوري وهو قول أصحابنا.
والثاني: أن معنى قوله "منكم" أي من عشيرتكم وقبيلتكم وهم مسملون أيضا، قاله الحسن وعكرمة والزهري والسدي وعن عبيدة كالقولين.
فأما قوله "أو آخران من غيركم" فقال ابن عباس ليست أو للتخير إنما المعنى أو آخران من غيركم إن لم تجدوا منكم. وفي قوله من غيركم قولان:
الأول من غير ملتكم ودينكم، قاله أرباب القول الأول. والثاني من غير عشيرتكم وقبيلتكم وهم مسلمون أيضا قال أرباب القول الثاني. والقائل بأن المراد شهادة المسلمين من القبيلة أو من غير القبيلة.

لا يشك في إحكام هذه الآية. فأما القائل بأن المراد بقوله أو آخران من غيركم أهل الكتاب إذا شهدوا على الوصية في السفر فلهم فيها قولان:
الأول أنها محكمة، والعمل على هذا عندهم باق، وهو قول ابن عباس وابن المسيب وابن جبير وابن سيرين وقتادة والشعبي والثوري وأحمد بن حنبل.
والثاني أنها منسوخة بقوله تعالى "وأشهدوا ذوي عدل منكم"، وهو قول زيد بن أسلم وإليه يميل أبو حنيفة ومالك والشافعي، قالوا وأهل الكفر ليسوا بعدول. والأول أصح لأن هذا موضع ضرورة فجاز كما يجوز في بعض الأماكن شهادة نساء لا رجل معهن بالحيض والنفاس والاستهلال

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106?
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2010, 03:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In his book, البيان في تفسير القرآن, As-Sayyid Al-Khoo'i refutes the claim and confirms my argument, as follows,

والتحقيق بطلان القول بالنسخ في الآية المباركة، والدليل على ذلك وجوه:
1 - الروايات المستفيضة من الطريقين الدالة على نفوذ شهادة أهل الكتاب في الوصية، إذا تعذرت شهادة المسلم، فمن هذه الروايات: ما رواه الكليني عن هشام بن الحكم عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام في قول الله تعالى: "أو آخران من غيركم، قال: إذا كان الرجل في أرض غربة، لا يوجد فيها مسلم جازت شهادة من ليس بمسلم على الوصية". وما رواه الشعبي: "أن رجلا من المسلمين حضرته الوفاة ب‍"دقوقا" هذه، ولم يجد أحدا من المسلمين يشهده على وصيته، فأشهد رجلين من أهل الكتاب، فقدما الكوفة فأتيا الأشعري - يعني أبا موسى - فأخبراه، وقدما بتركته ووصيته، فقال الأشعري: هذا أمر لم يكن بعد الذي كان في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فأحلفهما بعد العصر ما خانا، ولا كذبا، ولا بدلا، ولا كتما، ولا غيرا، وأنها لوصية الرجل وتركته، فأمضى شهادتهما

This is exactly the argument Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek) uses to refute this claim in his book أصول الفقه, page 254.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106-108?
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 04:16 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Not to mention that Chapter 5 was revealed after Chapter 65.

I must say that I detect a bias here. Someone postulates that there is a conflict (which there is not, as you point out) then overrules the chronological order. The result is that the earlier ruling prevails over the later ruling, contrary to the principles of abrogation. I think it is not far-fetched to detect that there is a preference between the two rulings.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106-108?
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2010, 03:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It obvious to me that the contexts of the two verses are different

Dr. Az-Zalmi uses the same argument to refute this abrogation claim in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 247-248. And so does Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 118-120.

Pragmatic wrote:
Not to mention that Chapter 5 was revealed after Chapter 65.

Ali Hasan Al-Areedh agrees with both points in his discussion of this case in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن. He narrates the circumstances of revelation of 5:106, according to Ibn Abbaas (RA), that it was an incident of a Muslim dying among non-Muslims and he had two non-Muslims witness his will. He also narrates a similar case where Judge Abu-Moosa accepted the testimony of two non-Muslim witness to a will after he took their oath.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2010, 04:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i and Judge Abdul-Jabbaar Al-Humazhaani (about 5:107 only, according to Aş-Şa`di),
Al-Hasan, Az-Zuhri (in one report),
Ikrima,
Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi said Az-Zalmi and confirmed by Shu`la),
Maalik,
Ash-Shaafi`i,
Abu-Haneefa,
Makki (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama (who considers this claim three separate abrogation cases),
Abu-Ali (Al-Jabaa'i?) (according to Aş-Şa`di),
As-Suyooti.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Ibn Abbaas (in another report and confirmed by Shu`la),
`Aa'isha (according to Makki and Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Mas`ood (implied by his allowance of People of the Book as witnesses to a Muslim will),
Abdullah ibn Qays (implied by An-Nahhaas),
Abu-Moosa Al-Ash`ari,
Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib,
Sa`eed Ibn Jabeer,
Ibn Seereen,
Qataada, Ash-Sha`bi, Sufyaa ibn `Uayana Ath-Thawri,
Mujaahid, Judge Shurayh ibn Al-Haarith,
An-Nakh`i, Al-Awzaa`i,
Al-Hasan, Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri (in another report and confirmed by Shu`la),
As-Suddi (according to Shu`la),
`Ubayda ibn Hameed At-Taymi,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Khumara ibn Habeeb and `Atiyya ibn Qays,
`Amr ibn Shurahbeel Al-Hamadaani aka Abu-Maysara,
Yahya ibn Mu`ammar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Yahya ibn Ya`mur (according to Shu`la. Maybe he is the same as ibn Mu`ammar?),
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal,
At-Tabari,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Ibn Taymiya,
An-Nahhaas,
Makki,
Al-Asfahaani,
Ibn Katheer (according to Dr. Zayd),
Ash-Shawkaani (in his book فتح القدير, volume 2, page 86),
Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi and Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Az-Zurqaani,
Ar-Raazi,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106-108?
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 17:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 336-337, refutes this case on the basis of the juristic rule, ما لايدرك كله لا يترك كله (What cannot be obtained entirely should not be abandoned entirely). That is, the two witnesses referred to by أو آخران من غيركم, even if it means non-Muslims, is only necessary when there are no Muslim witnesses available.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106-108?
PostPosted: 16 Aug 2010, 22:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 53-54, offers a simple refutation: 5:106 is particular for an on-the-road situation while 65:2 is general.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:2 abrogate 5:106-108?
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2010, 14:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 130-137, discusses this claim and rejects it. He narrates a hadeeth tracing back to Khumara ibn Habeeb and `Atiyya ibn Qays who said that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "Al-Maa'ida (Chapter 5) is among the last of the Quran in revelation, so allow what it allows and forbid what it forbids."

If this hadeeth is authentic, then how can any scholar claim that any verse in Chapter 5 was abrogated?

Ibn Salaam also propounds three opinions about what is meant by أو آخران من غيركم (or two others from other than yourselves). These are:

  1. People of the Book under Muslim rule (Ahl-uzh-Zhimma) and the verse, 5:106, was not abrogated, said Abu-Moosa Al-Ash`ari, Judge Shurayh ibn Al-Haarith, Mujaahid, Ash-Sha`bi, `Ubayda ibn Hameed At-Taymi, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i and Sufyaan ibn `Uyayna. It was also the ruling of Ibn Mas`ood.
  2. People of the Book under Muslim rule (Ahl-uzh-Zhimma) and the verse, 5:106, was abrogated by 65:2, said Maalik ibn Anas, people of Hijaaz and most Iraqis, except Sufyaan.
  3. Muslims from other tribes, said Al-Hasan and Abu-Moosa. Ibn Salaam knocks down their argument by observing that 5:106 starts out by addressing "O you who have believed!", so how can "other than you" means other Muslims? He also casts doubt on the authenticity of the narration attributed to Abu-Moosa since another, more authentic narration says the opposite.

    Ibn Shihaab said it means the heirs accusing each other. Ibn Salaam knocks down the argument saying that the verse clearly talks about witnesses, not about plaintiffs and defendants.

    All three used those interpretations to reject the abrogation claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


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 06 Dec 2019, 08:30

All times are UTC

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