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  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2010, 08:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I really want to understand why something that obvious to me is not even mentioned in discussing this abrogation case. There is no contradiction between the two rulings at all.

I am pleased to report that Dr. Mostafa Zaid concurs with this analysis, not just with the conclusion (see items 1155-1165 on pages 267-272 in volume 2 of his book). He gives an elaborate commentary with references to Sunna and scholarly opinions.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Validation process
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2010, 05:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Applying our validation process to this case, we find that the case fails all of the following rules on the list,

0: Neither God nor His messenger have stated that 2:240 (or 2:234 for that matter) was abrogated.
6: Verse 2:234 was revealed before 2:240.
8: Ibn Taymiya understood the verses to provide two options for the widow.
12: Two viewpoints show that the subject of each verse is unlike the other,
  1. Verse 2:234 requires something of the man's estate, if at all, while 2:240 requires something of the widow.
  2. Verse 2:234 speaks about a will, while 2:240 speaks about the waiting period for a widow before she can remarry.

Lastly: Both verses state that "there is no violation", thus neither one has a mandate. Only a mandate can be abrogated.
Should we add the above line to the rule set? Rule 3 applies to statements of facts, not to imperatives that are not mandates. Should I modify that rule to include rulings that are not mandates, as evidenced by allowances given in it, such as the case with 2:234 and 2:240?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2010, 06:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Both verses state that "there is no violation", thus neither one has a mandate. Only a mandate can be abrogated.
Should we add the above line to the rule set? Rule 3 applies to statements of facts, not to imperatives that are not mandates. Should I modify that rule to include rulings that are not mandates, as evidenced by allowances given in it, such as the case with 2:234 and 2:240?

I think this rule is unlikely to be the only rule applicable in any given case, so it will not add to the cases that we are successful in refuting. My concern is that it may be a less compelling rule, or at least more vulnerable to criticism, so it may result in more attacks than would be worth the benefit it will add.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 09:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
In his book, Burton dedicates pages 56-80, more than 10% of the entire book, to this abrogation claim. He asserts that this is the prime example used in several classical books on "the Abrogating and the Abrogated," and also used during the time of the Sahaba and early Muslims, to show the abrogation of a ruling without elimination of the verse containing it (the abrogation mode our thesis is against). He contends that he proved the claim to be false, and was content with that as a proof of the fallacy of this abrogation mode (quite a bit of a leap).

He has however, provided a remarkably elaborate historical view of this early abrogation claim, citing a number of relevant hadiths, showing conflicting opinions of the major Sahaba, and pointing out the labored efforts to arrive at an abrogation conclusion. I can't ascertain the accuracy of his references (perhaps they should be checked against Zaid's analysis of the same abrogation claim since he also rejects it). However, there are two notable observations one gets from reading this part of the book (assuming the facts are verifiable as correct and unbiased):

1. There are irreconcilable disagreements between the major Sahaba that are crisply demonstrated in this case. This shows that quoting an opinion of a single Sahabi in the context of proving something is quite vulnerable to pick-and-choose biases.

2. On pages 58 and 59, the author mentions Othman Ibn Affan's (may God be pleased with him) insistence on including in the Othmani copies of the Quran all the verses that the Prophet (PBUH) kept reciting even when other Sahabis claimed their rules were superseded, and also insisted in maintaining the order of verses in the Quran as the Prophet recited them even if an earlier verse was claimed to have abrogated a later verse (like the present abrogation claim). Othman has always been my hero because he focussed on the most important mission of all which is preserving the Quran. May God reward him for that on behalf of all of us.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 19:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
2. On pages 58 and 59, the author mentions Othman Ibn Affan's (may God be pleased with him) insistence on including in the Othmani copies of the Quran all the verses that the Prophet (PBUH) kept reciting even when other Sahabis claimed their rules were superseded, and also insisted in maintaining the order of verses in the Quran as the Prophet recited them even if an earlier verse was claimed to have abrogated a later verse (like the present abrogation claim). Othman has always been my hero because he focussed on the most important mission of all which is preserving the Quran. May God reward him for that on behalf of all of us.

Uthmaan, may God have been pleased with him, also had a written reference, the manuscripts of the Quran left in trust by the Prophet, peace be upon him, with his wife Hafsa and his daughter Fatima, may God have been pleased with them. Any book he found that deviated an iota from these identical manuscripts, he burned.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 24 Mar 2010, 06:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It is particularly strange to say that a verse that appears first in the chapter has abrogated one that appears later.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi is the first scholar I've read who acknowledged this oddity, yet he does not discuss it! He says in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم,

الآية الثالثة والعشرون قوله تعالى "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا وصية لأزواجهم" الآية 240 البقرة منسوخة، وناسخها قوله تعالى "والذين يتوفون منكم ويذرون أزواجا يتربصن بأنفسهن أربعة أشهر وعشرا" 234 البقرة. وليس في كتاب الله آية تقدم ناسخها على منسوخها وآية أخرى في الأحزاب "يا أيها النبي إنا أحللنا لك أزواجك" 50 مدنية الأحزاب 33 هذه الناسخة والمنسوخة "لا يحل لك النساء من بعد" الآية 52 مدنية الأحزاب 33

He quotes the other claim where the same oddity appears, 33:50/33:52, again without even a comment.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 27 Mar 2010, 15:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi is the first scholar I've read who acknowledged this oddity, yet he does not discuss it! He says in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم,
...
He quotes the other claim where the same oddity appears, 33:50/33:52, again without even a comment.

It is really disheartening to see obvious omissions and lack of elaboration in much of the literature regarding key issues like this. Even Burton, when he discussed 2:234/2:240, made the point that later verses in the text were not necessarily revealed later. The problem of course is that abrogators would need evidence, not just theoretical possibility, that the abrogating verse came later than the abrogated verse.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 11 May 2010, 06:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
On pages 252 of his book, Muhammad Al-Khodari refutes this case using the same logic that I used, that the two verses are dealing with different subjects. He specifically asserts that one verse states a right for the widows, and the other asserts a duty on them.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 05:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On pages 252 of his book, Muhammad Al-Khodari refutes this case using the same logic that I used, that the two verses are dealing with different subjects. He specifically asserts that one verse states a right for the widows, and the other asserts a duty on them.

Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 91-92, makes the conclusion that 2:234 specifies an option while 2:240 specifies a duty, but he does not mention that the parties are different, nor that the subjects are. Since the duty period is shorter than the optional period, he sees no contradiction between the two rulings. He quotes At-Tabari quoting Mujaahid saying that 2:240 was not abrogated and that the four months and ten days are the `Idda, required grace period and the rest of the year is a will that the window can peruse as she sees fit. This narration was reported by Al-Bukhaari.

Another voice against the claim comes from Al-Qurtubi. As-Saqqa quotes him from his exegesis saying that the reduction is like the reduction of the prayer from four to two bowings while traveling and that's not abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 17:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I really want to understand why something that obvious to me is not even mentioned in discussing this abrogation case. There is no contradiction between the two rulings at all. Here is my point, again.

2:234 obligates the widow to wait for 4 months and 10 days.

2:240 does not obligate the widow to do ANYTHING AT ALL. It only obligates the husband's estate to provide a year's residence to the widow, which she may leave on day 1 if she so chooses.

Where am I wrong in this?

Dr. Az-Zalmi agrees with you! In his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 166-169, refutes this case giving a number of arguments, the strongest of which are:
  1. Difference of subject: 2:240 is about a will, a right for the widow, and 2:234 is about a duty on the widow. That combines your and my arguments.
  2. 2:240 was revealed after 2:234. Which is the first thing I noticed and confirmed by Al-Asfahaani.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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 16 Dec 2017, 18:52

All times are UTC

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