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: 08 Jun 2010, 22:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Az-Zalmi agrees with you!

Al-Ghali also does :). On pages 87-92 of his book, he discusses this famous abrogation claim and refutes it based on the right/duty dichotomy between the two verses. He further substantiates the dichotomy by noting that the context of 2:240 is about rights, specifically pertaining to sustenance


while the context of 2:234 is about duties, specifically pertaining to the grace period.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


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

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghali also does

Linguistic wrote:
I just read in Dr. Khidr Nabha's thesis, "Tafseer Al-Asfahaani" that Al-Asfahaani pointed out that 2:234 was revealed before 2:240, so it cannot possibly abrogate it, which is what I noticed right away.

Yes. Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 87-92, refutes this claim and explains what Al-Asfahaani wrote. He wrote that the custom before Islam was that men used to leave a will that their wives stay at home for a year and be provided for by the estate. She could not leave before the year ended. Al-Asfahaani says that verse 2:240 allowed the year but disallowed the mandate that the wife stays for the duration. He also said such a will is only recommended.

Ar-Raazi and Muhammad Abduh also concur about the verse order. Rasheed Ridha wrote in his exegesis, Al-Manaar, that it is not befitting God to place verses in the wrong order for no apparent reason.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2010, 17:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
For:
...
Ar-Raazi (in one report),
...

Against:
...
Mujaahid ibn Jabr,
...
Ar-Raazi (in another report according to Al-Areedh),

Mujaahid's interpretation was,
جعل لها تمام السنة سبعة أشهر وعشرين ليلة وصية إن شاءت سكنت في وصيتها وإن شاءت خرجت. فالله تعالى أنزل في عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها آيتين إحداهما ما تقدم وهو قوله "يتربصن بأنفسهن أربعة أشهر وعشرا" والأخرى هذه الآية فوجب تنزيل هاتين الآيتين على حالتين، فنقول إنها إن لم تختر السكنى في دار زوجها ولم تأخذ النفقة من مال زوجها كانت عدتها أربعة أشهر وعشرا على ما في تلك الآية المتقدمة وأما إن اختارت السكنى في دار زوجها والأخذ من ماله وترِكتِه فعدتها هي الأولى، وتنزيل الآية على هذين التقديرين أولى حتى يكون كل واحد منهما معمولا به.

Brief translation: The two verses ought to be interpreted as two situations: one if the widow chooses to stay and one if she chooses to leave. This interpretation has priority so that both rulings are enforced.

Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 87-92, quotes Ar-Raazi, from his exegesis (التفسير الكبير) favoring Mujaahid's interpretation of two options for the widow. He said that whenever there is an interpretation of specification, it is preferred to an interpretation of abrogation, thus what Mujaahid said is the way to go and has priority above commitment to abrogation without evidence.

Rasheed Ridha strongly disagreed with that, though he agrees that there is no abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2010, 18:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
For:
...
Ar-Raazi (in one report),
...

Against:

...
Ar-Raazi (in another report according to Al-Areedh),

Could it be the father and son (mentioned in this post)?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 16:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
For:
...
Ar-Raazi (in one report),
...

Against:

...
Ar-Raazi (in another report according to Al-Areedh),

Could it be the father and son (mentioned in this post)?

I could be mistaken, but from what I've read, I've come to the conclusion that he was referred to by both names, Al-Fakhr and Abul-Fakhr. His name was Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Raazi, a famous exegete and a student of Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2010, 18:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I could be mistaken, but from what I've read, I've come to the conclusion that he was referred to by both names, Al-Fakhr and Abul-Fakhr. His name was Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Raazi, a famous exegete and a student of Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani.

Al-Zalmi spells out the name of the father as the author of the book, and I found references on the web that specifically mention both father and son by name. BTW, the time frame is much later than Al-Asfahani, so he must be a student of Al-Asfahani just figuratively.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 03:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, page 83, rejects this claim on the basis of the difference of subject. He says that 2:240 addresses Mut`a (stipend for the widow), while 2:234 addresses `Idda (the waiting or grace period). No conflict to resolve.

That is how Al-Jabri sees it too, as he states in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 125-126.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 13:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, page 83, rejects this claim on the basis of the difference of subject. He says that 2:240 addresses Mut`a (stipend for the widow), while 2:234 addresses `Idda (the waiting or grace period). No conflict to resolve.

Lately in my readings this point is made frequently and authoritatively. Remember that I was wondering early on why such obvious point is not mentioned in discussing this abrogation claim.

More than any other claim, to me this one provides evidence of poor scholarship, or prejudice, or both. It is so obvious that the conflict is not there between the two verses. Also, no claims of abrogation the other way around were made in spite of the reverse order of the verses, and it is difficult to escape the thought that shortening the widow support period was a more favorable conclusion for the abrogation claimants than lengthening it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2010, 14:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, completely leaves out this case! I'd like to think that he did not see any merit in this case, but because he saw merit in less meritorious cases, my guess is that his manuscript, which had many missing fragments, may have had missing pages too.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 01 Sep 2010, 15:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 112, reports this hadeeth as evidence for this claim,

حدثنا يزيد بن هارون، عن يحيى بن سعيد، عن حميد بن نافع، أنه سمع زينب بنت أبي سلمة تحدث عن أم سلمة وأم حبيبة أن امرأة أتت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرت أن ابنة لها توفي عنها زوجها، واشتكت عينها، فهي تريد أن تكتحلها، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: قد كانت إحداكن ترمي بالبعرة عند رأس الحول، وإنما هي أربعة أشهر وعشرا.
قال: قال حميد: فسألت زينب: ومارميها بالبعرة؟ فقالت: كانت المرأه في الجاهلية إذا توفي عنها زوجها عمدت إلى شر بيت لها فجلست فيه سنة، فإذا مرت سنة خرجت ورمت ببعرة من ورائها.
قال أبو عبيد: مذهبها في رمي البعرة أن الذي صنعت بنفسها من قعودها أهون عليها من بعرة.
اهـ

Brief translation:
A woman came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and told him about a daughter of hers who wanted to get out of the house so she can apply eye liner to cure her eye. He said, "You women used to throw dung at year end. No, it's four months and ten days."

The narrator, Hameed, asked Zaynab bint Abi-Salama, the woman who told him this story what is that business of throwing dung. She told him that it was the custom of a widow in the pre-Islamic era to stay at the worst house she can find for a year then after a year throw dung behind her when she leaves it. Meaning, Abu-Ubayd said, that the way she tormented herself in grief means less to her than dung.

This hadeeth is reported by all six top Hadeeth reporters, as well as Maalik, Ibn Hanbal and Al-Hameedi.

The story does not prove that 2:240 was abrogated; it only proves that the pre-Islamic custom of mourning for a year was. 2:240 does not talk about mourning, it talks about provision of finances and housing for the widow. It is 2:234 that talks about mourning and the hadeeth confirms it.

_________________
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 2 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 07 Jul 2020, 05:57

All times are UTC

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