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  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2010, 18:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In this case, scholars differed about what part, if any, of 4:24 was abrogated and by what. Some suggested that it was the `Idda verses that abrogated it. Here are the verses:

is claimed to have been abrogated by

and/or


This is what Al-Jawzi writes about the case,

ذكر الآية الثانية عشرة: قوله تعالى "وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم". وقد ذكر في هذه الآية موضعان منسوخان:

الأول قوله "وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم"، هذا عند عموم العلماء لفظ عام دله التخصيص بنهي النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تنكح المرأة على عمتها أو على خالتها، وليس هذا على سبيل النسخ. وقد ذهب قوم لا فقه لهم إلى أن التحليل المذكور في الآية منسوخ بهذا الحديث، وهذا إنما يأتي من عدم فهم الناسخ والمنسوخ، والجهل بشرائطه وقلة المعرفة بالفرق بين التخصيص والنسخ.

وأما الموضع الثاني فقوله تعالى "فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن". اختلف العلماء في المراد بهذا الاستمتاع على قولين:
الأول أنه النكاح والأجور المهور، وهذا مذهب ابن عباس ومجاهد والجمهور.
والثاني أنه المتعة التي كانت في أول الأمر كان الرجل ينكح المرأة إلى أجل مسمى ويشهد شاهدين فإذا انقضت المدة ليس له عليها سبيل، قاله قوم منهم السدي. ثم اختلفوا هل هي محكمة أو منسوخة. فقال قوم هي محكمة. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال حدثنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا محمد بن المثنى قال بنا محمد ابن جعفر قال بنا شعبة عن الحكم قال سألته عن هذه الآية "فما استمتعتم به منهن" أمنسوخة هي؟ قال لا، قال الحكم وقال علي رضي الله عنه لولا أن عمر نهى عن المتعة فذكر شيئا، وقال آخرون هي منسوخة، واختلفوا بماذا نسخت على قولين:
الأول بإيجاب العدة. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا علي بن أيوب قال أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال أبنا أحمد بن محمد قال أبنا هاشم بن مخلد عن ابن المبارك عن عثمان بن عطاء عن عطاء عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن فريضة" فنسختها "يا أيها النبي إذا طلقتم النساء فطلقوهن لعدتهن" وكذلك " والمطلقات يتربصن بأنفسهن ثلاثة قروء" و"واللائي يئسن من المحيض من نسائكم إن ارتبتم فعدتهن ثلاثة أشهر".
والثاني أنها نسخت بنهي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن المتعة، وهذا القول ليس بشيء لوجهين: الأول أن الآية سبقت لبيان عقدة النكاح بقوله "محصنين" أي متزوجين عاقدين النكاح، فكان معنى الآية "فما استمتعتم به منهن" على وجه النكاح الموصوف فآتوهن مهورهن، وليس في الآية ما يدل على أن المراد نكاح المتعة الذي نهى عنه، ولا حاجة إلى التكلف وإنما أجاز المتعة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم منع منها. والثاني أنه لو كان ذلك لم يجز نسخه بحديث واحد


The dispute about what part was abrogated has two suggestions,
  1. وأحل لكم ماوراء ذلكم (and made lawful for you what is beyond that). Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses the claim by explaining that specification is not abrogation.
  2. فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن (So for whatever you enjoy from them, give them their due compensation). Here the dispute is about what the words mean and what abrogated them. Consensus, Ibn Al-Jawzi reports, is that they mean marriage and dowry. Ibn Al-Jawzi does not comment on that. Others, he said, thought the words mean temporary marriage, in which case they thought that either 65:1 or 2:228 abrogated it by specifying the grace period, or that the Sunna abrogated it by forbidding temporary marriage. Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses both arguments saying that the words clearly mean regular marriage, evidenced by the words محصنين and that a hadeeth narrated by a few cannot abrogate a verse.

It sounds like Ibn Al-Jawzi rejects this abrogation claim. I fully agree. The words وأحل لكم ما وراء ذلكم (and it is lawful to you what is beyond that) does not mean temporary marriage; it's a follow-up on the list of prohibited categories of women to marry, listed in the previous verse, 4:23. That is, other than the categories of women on that list, all other categories of women may be married.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2010, 19:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The dispute about what part was abrogated has two suggestions,
  1. وأحل لكم ماوراء ذلكم (and made lawful for you what is beyond that). Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses the claim by explaining that specification is not abrogation.
  2. فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن (So for whatever you enjoy from them, give them their due compensation). Here the dispute is about what the words mean and what abrogated them. Consensus, Ibn Al-Jawzi reports, is that they mean marriage and dowry. Ibn Al-Jawzi does not comment on that. Others, he said, thought the words mean temporary marriage, in which case they thought that either 65:1 or 2:228 abrogated it by specifying the grace period, or that the Sunna abrogated it by forbidding temporary marriage. Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses both arguments saying that the words clearly mean regular marriage, evidenced by the words محصنين and that a hadeeth narrated by a few cannot abrogate a verse.
It sounds like Ibn Al-Jawzi rejects this abrogation claim. I fully agree.

This case illustrates the violation of one of the basic principles that is widely agreed upon even by the pro-abrogation scholars: If there is more than one interpretation of a verse, and one of them can be made without invoking abrogation, then abrogation should not be invoked.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 14 Apr 2010, 05:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
2. فما استمتعتم به منهن فآتوهن أجورهن (So for whatever you enjoy from them, give them their due compensation). Here the dispute is about what the words mean and what abrogated them.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi said that what abrogated the quoted part is either,

Or the hadeeth,
إني كنت أحللت هذه المتعة ألا وإن الله ورسوله قد حرماها ألا فليبلغ الشاهد الغائب

Translation: "I had allowed this temporary marriage. Hear ye! God and His messenger have forbidden it. Let those present tell those absent." Narrated by Sabara and reported by Muslim.

Obviously, 23:5 abrogated nothing; it's a praise for those who are chaste. When temporary marriage was briefly allowed, it was legal marriage and therefore is not affected by 23:5.

Now the quoted hadeeth is a perfect example of a legitimate abrogation case! But it abrogates a prior ruling of the Prophet (PBUH). Notice how the Prophet (PBUH) said "I had allowed..."? It does not abrogate any verse, since no verse has allowed temporary marriage. 4:24 does not speak of temporary marriage, it speaks of the requirement of a dowry when marriage is consummated. The word Mut`a is often incorrectly translated as "enjoyment" and thus thought to be a metaphor for sex. The word can mean that, but is not limited to it. Any kind of comfort or leeway is called Mut`a, such as حج التمتع (pilgrimage with a break within it). Alimony is also called Mut`a.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 22 May 2010, 05:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 120-122, rejects this claim on the basis that the verse (4:24) does not talk about temporary marriage at all. He quotes Al-Qurtubi saying in his exegesis that what the verse means is that the dowry is due when the conjugal is done.

As-Saqqa mentions that in one report Ibn Abbaas has said that he does not know what the verse means and that Mujaahid said if someone could explain this verse to him he would beat the sides of camels to him, i.e., travel a long distance to see him!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 May 2010, 05:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (two different opinions),
Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib,
`Aa'isha (according to some),
Muqaatil,
As-Suddi,
`Urwa,
Ubayy and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer (implied by their odd recitation, noted Dr. Zayd),
Al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad,
Ash-Shaafi`i,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (implied),
Makki, Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la.

Against:
The majority including An-Naħri (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
`Aa'isha (as quoted by Shu`la),
Ibn Abbaas (a third report by An-Nahhaas),
Mujaahid and Al-Hasan (implied),
Ali and `Imraan ibn Haşeen (according to Shu`la),
Al-Hakam,
Ibn Zayd and Yahya ibn Al-Husayn aka Al-Haadi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Al-Jassaas,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
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 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 19 Jun 2010, 06:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 114-119, refutes this claim. He says that even if 4:24 is talking about temporary marriage, which he asserts it's not, then it is talking about a different type of marriage, thus the claim that 65:1 or 2:228 abrogated it is without merit, since those two verses talk about divorce and inheritance, which do not apply to temporary marriage. He says that the only thing left is the hadeeth prohibiting temporary marriage and he rejects that any hadeeth can abrogate the Quran.

He then asserts that 4:24 clearly talks about regular marriage because,

  • That is what the previous verse started talking about.
  • The verse uses the word المحصنات which only means properly married women.
  • The word أجورهن means their dowry, evidenced by the use of the same word in the next verse,

    And by the use of the phrase "with their families' permission" in 4:25 too.
  • The phrase is a continuation of the instruction about which women a man may properly marry, said Al-Jassaas.
  • Al-Jassaas says that the verse actually excludes temporary marriage, evidenced by the exception غير مسافحين (not just for sex). He said fornication arrangements do not count as marriage since they do not legitimate paternity, do not provide a grace period after divorce (`Idda) and do not "sanction the bed", i.e., mandate fidelity. He says temporary marriage has all that in common with fornication. Rasheed Ridha agrees and adds that the primary purpose for the man from temporary marriage is sex, not chastity (الإحصان).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2010, 18:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji adds more information in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 279. He says that Ibn Abbaas had three different opinions, all reported by An-Nahhaas:

  1. Verse 65:1 abrogated 4:24,
  2. The laws of marriage, divorce, grace period, dowry, testimony, and inheritance abrogated 4:24.
  3. Verse 4:24 is not abrogated; it's about temporary marriage, not the proper marriage.

`Aa'isha (RA), `Urwa, Ibn Al-Musayyib, Al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and As-Suddi all agree with the second opinion. `Aa'isha (RA) also had another opinion: that 23:5 abrogated 4:24. Makki reported that and commented that it can't be because Chapter 23 was revealed in Mecca long before Chapter 4, which was revealed in Medina. Ash-Shaafi`i agreed with `Aa'isha.

IMHO, all four opinions are missing the point of 4:24: marriage, whether proper or temporary, must be accompanied by dowry when consummated. That has never been abrogated. The fact that the Prophet (PBUH) allowed temporary marriage then forbade it has no bearing on the fact that dowry must be given to the bride.

Lastly, Al-Khazraji says that all scholars who agreed with the abrogation of 4:24 by the prohibition of temporary marriage, they also said that the clause ولاجناح عليكم فيما تراضيتم به من بعد الفريضة (and there is no blame on you in what you agree to beyond the obligation), was also abrogated. An-Nahhaas also said that those who disagreed that 4:24 was not abrogated have said that a husband who has financial difficulty may negotiate the dowry. It is difficult to see how this conclusion can be made when God clearly says "Beyond the obligation".

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2010, 04:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Verse 4:24 is not abrogated; it's about temporary marriage, not the proper marriage. (Ibn Abbaas)

A side point. The wording of 4:24 can be so easily construed as addressing temporary marriage. Because of that, believe it or not, I take the claim of abrogation as one piece of evidence that scholars resisted gender bias in their rulings. It would have been easy for them to take 4:24 as evidence that temporary marriage is allowed, and either doubt the hadeeth or doubt that the hadeeth came after 4:24, thus allowing (the arguably pro-male anti-female) temporary marriage.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 27 Sep 2010, 18:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, page 91, author Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani writes that Ibn Abbaas, who was the lone jurist who allowed temporary marriage, had recanted that opinion when he was dying. He said on his death bed, "O God, I repent to you from what I said about Mut`a (temporary marriage)", reported in the exegeses of Al-Khaazen and Al-Qurtubi and in the book زاد المسير by Ibn Al-Jawzi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 65:1 or 2:228 abrogate 4:24?
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 07:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Abbaas, who was the lone jurist who allowed temporary marriage, had recanted that opinion when he was dying. He said on his death bed, "O God, I repent to you from what I said about Mut`a (temporary marriage)"

This is a pretty strange story.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 25 Sep 2020, 09:10

All times are UTC

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