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  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did a hadeeth abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2010, 05:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 107-113, reports this case, which is rarely mentioned elsewhere. The claim is that

was abrogated by the hadeeth,
عن أبي هريرة يقول نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يجمع بين المرأة وخالتها وبين المرأة وعمتها. أخرجه البخاري ومسلم

Translation: A woman shall not be married together with her maternal or paternal aunt.

The claim is that this hadeeth abrogates the part of 4:24 that says وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم (And it is made lawful for you whatever is beyond that).

Ibn Al`Arabi rejects the abrogation claim saying that it is an example of specification, not abrogation. Ibn Al-Jawzi and Ash-Shawkaani and Dr. Mustafa Zayd agreed.

Husaam Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, quotes M. Rasheed Ridha who rejects the claim but also rejects the notion that this is a case of specification. His argument is that the verse enumerates which women may not be married for an inherent reason, such as kinship and suckling; it does not talk about circumstantial reasons that forbid marrying a woman, which is what the hadeeth talks about. In other words, a man can marry a woman or her aunt but not both at the same time. Thus, the hadeeth complements the verse rather than abrogates it. This is the most sensible explanation to me.

He also quotes his teacher, Imaam Muhammad Abduh, saying that the enumerated list of forbidden women is a sample that is extended by analogy. For instance, mothers also imply grandmothers, daughters also imply nieces. His view is that the verse is a brief (مجمل) which the Sunna has detailed. He says that the reason those enumerated women were specifically mentioned is because it was a common practice in pre-Islamic era.

Al-Ghaali then quotes in full what Ar-Raazi said about this claim refuting it. I found all his arguments very labored. Interestingly, Al-Khawaarij faction ("the defectors"), rejected the notion that this is a case of specification, but they also rejected taking any hadeeth as abrogating the Quran.

Two more opinions were mentioned. As-Suddi said that "whomever beyond that" means up to four. Ibn Katheer found that weak. Qataada said the phrase means bond maidens.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2010, 05:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
`Ataa' (according to Makki),
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani (implied, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, page 23),
Abush-Shaykh Al-Haafizh (quoted by Al-Hamdaani).


Against:
As-Suddi,
Qataada,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ash-Shawkaani,
Makki (implied),
Ar-Raazi,
Muhammad Abduh,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did a hadeeth abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2010, 06:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
M. Rasheed Ridha rejects the claim but also rejects the notion that this is a case of specification. His argument is that the verse enumerates which women may not be married for an inherent reason, such as kinship and suckling; it does not talk about circumstantial reasons that forbid marrying a woman, which is what the hadeeth talks about. In other words, a man can marry a woman or her aunt but not both at the same time.

Indeed, another example which is also circumstantial and not stated in the verse is that a man cannot marry a woman he divorced 3 times if she hasn't married someone else since.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did a hadeeth abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2013, 19:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, page 23, quoting Abush-Shaykh Al-Haafizh, adds another hadeeth to this claim, "What blood relation prohibits so does suckling relation", reported by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

Clearly that is not abrogation, but an exception from the generality of 4:24. Al-Hamdaani demonstrated throughout his book that he had difficulty distinguishing between the two concepts.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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, 12:31

All times are UTC

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