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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 19:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • Some said that 24:2 is the way out, implying I suppose that 24:2 is the final abrogating text. Al-Asfahaani refutes this argument saying that flogging is harsher, so it cannot be thought of as a way out for the woman, rather a way against her.

Not sure. Flogging may be a preferred option if the alternative is life imprisonment. Stoning is the one which is patently harsher. The argument that 24:2 is the way out referred to in 4:15 has merit. It may not stand the scrutiny of the details of 4:15-16, but it has merit.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 03:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 83-84, rejects this claim on the same basis as Al-Asfahaani's. But he does not exclude adultery from 4:15. Instead, he said, the word الفاحشة (debauchery) can mean both adultery and lesbianism, but adultery was later specifically handled by 24:2 and that leaves lesbianism covered by 4:15.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 09:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 83-84, rejects this claim on the same basis as Al-Asfahaani's. But he does not exclude adultery from 4:15. Instead, he said, the word الفاحشة (debauchery) can mean both adultery and lesbianism, but adultery was later specifically handled by 24:2 and that leaves lesbianism covered by 4:15.

Nice! This fits the self-delimiting aspect of the last part of 4:15. The related hadeeth also fits that, but the exact content of the hadeeth may have been 'augmented' (which one way or the other it must have since it specifies added penalty to flogging that has not been applied by the Prophet PBUH in practice).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2010, 16:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 268-269, propounds several opinions of the scholars:

  • Qataada opined that 4:15 was abrogated by the punitives (presumably 24:2) and inheritance.
  • Qataada and An-Nahhaas said that 4:15 was abrogated by 4:16, which itself was abrogated by 24:2.
  • Al-Khazraji concludes from those two conflicting opinions that Qataada believed that 4:16 was addressing two unmarried women (!) and 4:15 addressing two married women.
  • Agreeing with that conclusion were Muhammad ibn Jareer (At-Tabari) and Ibn Habeeb.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 14 Aug 2010, 04:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • Al-Khazraji concludes from those two conflicting opinions that Qataada believed that 4:16 was addressing two unmarried women (!) and 4:15 addressing two married women.

Two women? Referred to by اللذان instead of اللتان :thinking: ? I studied that part of Arabic grammar in elementary school for crying out loud. Wait a minute. The verses are talking about a punishment so it must be for women. :?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2010, 16:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 208-220, discusses this claim at length and refutes it. He brings out a number of excellent points:

  • The objection of the scholars to Al-Asfahhani's brilliant deduction that 4:15-16 is about homosexuals only, the objection that nobody else said it is moot. `Ataaya says "if the opinions of the early exegetes is the final say then the door of analysis is closed and the Book of God is frozen. That the early Muslims did not discover that the earth is round does not mean that later Muslims could not find that out! And who said that the opinions of exegetes cannot be wrong?"

    He then quotes Ar-Raazi, from his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 5, pages 81-83, saying that Mujaahid, a prominent exegete of old, also expressed the conclusion that 4:15-16 was about homosexuals.

    He then mentions that Ash-Sha`raawi, may God bless his soul, the foremost exegete of recent times, also concluded that 4:15 was about lesbians, evidenced by the relative pronoun اللاتي which can only refer to women. See his book تفسير الشعراوي, pages 2064-2065. He also said that 4:16 was about homosexual men only.

  • The hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) that says "God has made for them a way out", narrated by `Ubaada ibn As-Saamit, has many problems:

    1. How can death by execution be a way out? A way out is good news. How can killing be good news?
    2. How can the hadeeth provide a way out for a situation that is not mentioned in the Quran, namely stoning married fornicators?
    3. How can expelling a young, unmarried woman for a year away from her family be wise or proper? Doesn't that subject her to more sin? If she sinned while she was living with her family and under their protection, can you imagine what would happen if she is separated from that and all alone?

    `Ataaya notes that many scholars have said that the hadeeth was abrogated by 24:2. His conclusion, however, is that the hadeeth applies to lesbians. That is, women who engage in a lesbian act, were initially locked up at home until further notice. That notice was revealed to the prophet (PBUH) in the hadeeth, namely, they are to be flogged and imprisoned for a year if they were single. After that they can go out. As for married women who engage in lesbianism, those are to be flogged and stoned. His evidence is that the hadeeth only refers to women.

    It is a clever argument. But it does not prove that 4:15 was abrogated, only that the way out from house arrest for lesbian sex offenders has been revealed. But the hadeeth, if authentic, leaves out the way out for the case of an unmarried woman having lesbian sex with a married woman. Doesn't that mean that the Prophet (PBUH) left us with an incomplete Sharia, God forbid?

    He certainly did not. The hadeeth must therefore be inauthentic with those words in it.

  • If 4:15 was about adultery, then how can locking up a married woman at her home be? How can her husband accept her? The purpose of the house arrest, `Ataaya believes, is rehabilitation. When she is separated from women for a long time, she may be rehabilitated and get married instead. That is Al-Asfahaani's opinion too.

    I'd add here that if the word debauchery in 4:15 refers to adultery and not lesbianism, then how come the divorce verse

    allows expelling a divorced wife from home before the term of her grace period (`Idda) if she commits a debauchery? If she's under house arrest for that debauchery, per 4:15, then she cannot be expelled.

  • If 4:16 includes women, then there are two punishments for women. How come there is only one punishment for men?

  • If 4:15-16 are about fornication, then God has not specified a punishment for homosexuality and left that out of His Holy Book in which He says He neglected nothing. Nay, God has specified a punishment for every one of the three illicit sexual acts: female homosexuality (4:15), male homosexuality (4:16) and fornication (24:2). Nothing was left out.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2010, 03:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
How can death by execution be a way out? A way out is good news. How can killing be good news?

I think the best way to make this point is to emphasize the Arabic word "لهن" (for them) in the verse which has a positive connotation that death by stoning would most decidedly not fit. People may argue that death is indeed a "way out" in the strict sense. Not a positive way out, but a way out nonetheless.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 20 Sep 2010, 04:00 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
In his discussion of this claim, the author of this book makes a disturbing statement on page 104 about the reliability of Al-Hasan Al-Basri as a narrator. He quotes Ibn Saad and Shams Aldeen Al-Thahabey (whoever they are) dismissing the narrations of Al-Hasan Al-Basri and accusing him of making up hadeeths. Pretty serious stuff that needs to be investigated.

Another remark the author makes which is interesting is that this abrogation claim is one of the most famous claims and often cited as a "proof" that abrogation has occurred in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 18:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir makes the same conclusion as Al-Asfahaani, Ar-Raazi, Dr. N.A. Tantaawi do, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 162, saying, "4:15-16 do not talk about adultery, they talk about the other debauchery."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:2 abrogate 4:15-16?
PostPosted: 10 Oct 2010, 17:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 99-104, discusses this claim and refutes it. He mentions two narrations that may very well explain why many scholars thought that 4:15 was speaking about adultery. One reported by Ibn Jareer (At-Tabari) and attributed to As-Suddi and the other attributed to [Sa`eed] Ibn Jabeer. Both narrations have been criticized by scholars in attribution as well as content. Neither narration is attributed to the Prophet (PBUH).

These narrations state that in the beginning of Islam, people used to lock adulteresses up in a prison and the husband took back his dowry but continued to financially support her without divorce and without conjugal visits. M. Rasheed Ridha points out that this is obviously their own ruling, not something that God or His Messenger ordered, since 4:15 orders that adulteresses be locked up in their homes, not in prison, and does not allow the husband to take back his dowry. He also draws attention to the fact that 4:15 was revealed after the battle of Uhud, which took place at 3 A.H., not at the beginning of Islam as the narrations allude to.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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 28 Mar 2024, 13:46

All times are UTC

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