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  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did the last part of 2:196 abrogate the first part?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2010, 00:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
This is one case where some scholars have said that a verse contained an abrogated part and an abrogating part! Here is the verse,

This is how Ibn Al-Jawzi reports the case,

ذكر الاية الحادية والعشرين: قوله تعالى "ولا تحلقوا رؤوسكم حتى يبلغ الهدي محله" ذكر بعض المفسرين أن هذا الكلام اقتضى تحريم حلق الشعر سواء وجد به أذى أو لم يوجد، ولم يزل الأمر على ذلك حتى رأى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كعب بن عجرة والقمل يتناثر على وجهه فقال أتجد شاة فقال لا فنزلت "فمن كان منكم مريضا أو به أذى من رأسه ففدية من صيام أو صدقة أو نسك" والمعنى فحلق ففدية، فاقتضى هذا الكلام إباحة حلق الشعر عند الأذي مع الفدية، وصار ناسخا لتحريمه المتقدم. قلت وفي هذا بعد من وجهين: الأول أنه يحتاج ان يثبت أن نزول قوله "فمن كان منكم مريضا" تأخر عن نزول أول الآية ولا يثبت هذا، والظاهر نزول الآية في مرة، بدليل قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أتجد شاة والشاة هي النسك المذكور في قوله "أو نسك". والثاني إنا لو قدرنا نزول متأخرا فلا يكون نسخا لأنه قد بان بذكر العذر أن الكلام الأول لمن لا عذر له فصار التقدير ولا تحلقوا رؤسكم إلا أن يكون منكم مريض أو من يؤذيه هوامه فلا ناسخ ولا منسوخ

He points out two arguments to refute the abrogation claim. One is that there is no evidence that the last part of the verse was revealed some period after the first part, but the verse was revealed all at once. The second argument he pointed out is that the latter part of the verse simply explains the exemption from the first part. Exemptions are not abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the last part of 2:196 abrogate the first part?
PostPosted: 16 Jan 2010, 05:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
I would reject the notion of part of a verse being abrogated, let alone being abrogated by another part of the same verse, in principle. The doctrine of abrogation is based on 2:106,



and the wording is to abrogate (or cause to be forgotten) a verse not part of a verse. Notice that " مثلها ننسها منها " all refer to the verse (feminine).

PS: The above statement is refined in this post.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the last part of 2:196 abrogate the first part?
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2010, 07:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I would reject the notion of part of a verse being abrogated, let alone being abrogated by another part of the same verse, in principle. The doctrine of abrogation is based on 2:106,
...
and the wording is to abrogate (or cause to be forgotten) a verse not part of a verse. Notice that " مثلها ننسها منها " all refer to the verse (feminine).

Excellent observation and I certainly agree with your conclusion.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
For:
Unnamed exegetes. Their argument however is based on a hadeeth quoted in the OP,
Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (according to Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas (according to Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

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

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did a part of 2:196 abrogate another part?
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 04:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi agrees that 2:196 abrogated itself. He states that this part: فمن كان منكم مريضا أو به أذى من رأسه ففدية من صيام أو صدقة أو نسك (And whoever among you is ill or has an ailment of the head [making required haircut painful, must offer] a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice) abrogated the earlier part: ولا تحلقوا رؤوسكم حتى يبلغ الهدي محله (And do cut your hair until the sacrificial animal has reached its place of slaughter).

That is an obvious case of one sentence completing another, not an example of abrogation. If that's abrogation, then pilgrims are no longer required to cut their hair.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did a part of 2:196 abrogate another part?
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2010, 06:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Why doesn't he apply the same logic later in the same verse when the sacrifice requirement is stated then an exemption from it is made in terms of alternative fasting?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the last part of 2:196 abrogate the first part?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 18:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, page 69, explains this verse very well. He says that the first part of the verse deals exclusively with the case of one who could not get to Mecca by slaughter day because of an enemy preventing him or a danger. This is evidenced by the latter part which starts with the words فإذا أمنتم (then when you feel safe).

Thus what this verse says is the following,
  1. You must complete the pilgrimage and the ritual visit (Umra) by going to Mecca, offering the animal sacrifice then cutting your hair.
  2. If you are prevented from doing so by an enemy or other danger then do the animal sacrifice where you are. Don't cut your hair though (to complete the rituals) until the sacrifice meat reaches Mecca.
  3. If, however, you are sick or have a problem with your scalp that makes cutting the hair risky, then you don't have to cut it. Instead, you can fast, give a charity, or offer another sacrifice.
  4. When you feel safe, and you intended to combine pilgrimage with Umra, then you must offer another sacrifice after you've finished the Umra part.
  5. If you can't afford it, or cannot find an animal to sacrifice, you can fast instead.
  6. The above does not apply to one whose family lives near the Sacrosanct Mosque.

Thus, the verse is consistent and details what's required and no part of it abrogates any other part.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did the last part of 2:196 abrogate the first part?
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2010, 19:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 150-153 (items 905-911), mentions the many interpretations of scholars of what "Complete the pilgrimage and the Umra" means:

  • Ali, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and Taawoos said it means to make the Ihraam from home.
  • Mujaahid said it means to do what is required in them.
  • `Ataa', narrating from Ibn Abbaas, said it means not to abort them after having made the intention to do them.
  • Others said not to do them for the purpose of trading and such.

Ibn Al-Jawzi favors Ibn Abbaas's interpretation and so do I since it is the most obvious from the context, as God says immediately afterward, "But if you are prevented..."

Much of the discussion in the literature revolves around whether a pilgrim may end the state of Ihram after the Tawaaf (circumambulation around the Ka`ba) and thus turn a pilgrimage into an Umra. This is because Ibn Abbaas had given a fatwa that they can while Abu-Bakr and Umar did not end their Ihraam until the day of feast. This is called aborting the pilgrimage فسخ الحج and it is different from Tamattu` (taking a break after Umra until pilgrimage time) التمتع.

Frankly, this is the first time I hear of such issue. The narration is unique to Ibn Abbaas and that makes it indecisive as a basis for an abrogation claim. Not to mention that the abrogating in this case is not a verse and therefore does not fall under the abrogation doctrine which is what we are concerned with here in this study.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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 25 Feb 2020, 12:03

All times are UTC

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