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  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 13:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
BTW, Nada quotes a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) on page 145 saying that the "the lashed fornicator does not marry except someone like him" and that confirms a point I think you mentioned in another thread (since I can't find it in this thread) that the prohibition relates to someone convicted of fornication not just someone who fornicated.

That was the ruling of Al-Hasan Al-Basri, may God have been pleased with him, per Al-Khazraji.

Al-Khazraji also mentions that Mujaahid's interpretation of 24:3 is that it refers to prostitutes "who support their husbands."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 14:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
BTW, Nada quotes a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) on page 145 saying that the "the lashed fornicator does not marry except someone like him" and that confirms a point I think you mentioned in another thread (since I can't find it in this thread) that the prohibition relates to someone convicted of fornication not just someone who fornicated.

I think you're referring to this post.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010, 16:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
This is the only case where Jamaal `Ataaya has given a flawed argument IMHO. That's alright; every scholar has the right to be wrong sometime :)

He discusses this claim, which he rejects, on pages 253-259 of his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن. He settles on the interpretation that ينكح in 24:3 means to have sex. I strongly disagree. Az-Zajjaaj has proved that the word has never been used in the Quran to mean anything but marriage. I fully agree. Ash-Shawkaani disagreed and quoted for evidence,

Which is a rather surprising opinion since the verse says a few words later, "then if he divorces her...", proving that 2:230 also speaks about marriage. Ash-Shawkaani said, according to `Ataaya, that the Prophet (PBUH) explained 2:230 by saying that what it means is sex. Yes, but within marriage!

`Ataaya points out that Sa`eed ibn Jabeer has said two conflicting opinions: that ينكح in 24:3 means to have sex and that it means marriage. Again, he probably meant to have sex within marriage, as opposed to fornication.

`Ataaya concludes that 24:3 is a declarative statement, thus it cannot be abrogated, which talks about fornication only and not marriage at all, and therefore is unrelated to 24:32. I strongly disagree. The reason that 24:32 does not affect 24:3 is that الأيامى does not mean, nor include fornicators!

Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib has opined that 24:3 was also abrogated by

I strongly disagree, since 24:3 specified the exception, or limitation, to the generality in 4:3.

`Ataaya's main point of contention is that he thought that the interpretation that ينكح in 24:3 means marriage, implies that God approves of fornication. No! He simply says that fornicators cannot marry chaste people. That does not preclude punishing fornicators by flogging them. This was the opinion of Al-Hasan; that a man convicted of fornication can only marry a woman convicted of fornication. Ibn Al`Arabi disagreed and said that examination and narration do not support that. `Ataaya does not detail Ibn Al`Arabi's opinion. Does Ibn Al`Arabi suggest that convicted fornicators were allowed to marry chaste people?! That's absurd.

Ash-Shawkaani leans in his book فتح القدير, volume 4, page 5, to the opinion that 24:3 is a declarative statement stating the natural preference of fornicators to be with each other and that it is meant to discourage chaste believers from marrying fornicators. I strongly disagree. In reality, even criminals seek good people when they need something wholesome, a point brilliantly highlighted by Sheikh Sha`raawi, may God bless his soul. He pointed out how a thief would entrust his money and property to an honest man and never to a thief. By the same token, a fornicator who now wants to settle down and start a family will seek a chaste woman to marry. Verse 24:3 says he's not allowed to. This, to me, is the spirit of 24:3, which is in accordance with the general principle God emphasized by the rhetorical question,


One point `Ataaya makes is true though, and that is that 24:3 is a declarative statement. But, it is a declarative statement meant as an imperative, a style that appears many times in the Quran, for instance,

Where "obedience and good words" means "obey and say good words."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 04:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
In this book, the author dedicates pages 115-120 to this abrogation claim, including claims that other verses (or legislative tools) abrogated 24:3.

What is clear throughout the discussion is that this is more of a case of puzzlement over the mention of "marrying polytheists" in 24:3, rather than a case of abrogation. Indeed, nothing in the language of 24:32 annuls the puzzling aspect of 24:3. Nobody said that after 24:3 was revealed, fornicating Muslims married polytheists then the practice stopped after another revelation. None of the usual abrogation bases is used here.

Now, the scholarly explanations that try to dismiss "marrying polytheists" in 24:3 are remarkably weak. One popular interpretation is to treat "ينكح" in 24:3 as 'to copulate' rather than 'to marry'. An inspection of what the verse would be saying and how it can be applied under this interpretation is duly ignored.

I don't know how we should handle this case since I don't see it really as a case of abrogation because of the absence of a credible abrogating verse.

BTW, the author notes that the opening verse of Chapter 24 is unique and leaves no room to consider any ruling in it abrogated. We discussed this before in one of the threads about abrogation claims in Chapter 24.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 16:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
What is clear throughout the discussion is that this is more of a case of puzzlement over the mention of "marrying polytheists" in 24:3, rather than a case of abrogation. Indeed, nothing in the language of 24:32 annuls the puzzling aspect of 24:3. Nobody said that after 24:3 was revealed, fornicating Muslims married polytheists then the practice stopped after another revelation. None of the usual abrogation bases is used here.

I don't understand why he is puzzled. Verse 24:3 makes a complete ruling: Fornicators can only marry fornicators or polytheists. Since a Muslim man can only marry a Muslim woman or a woman from the People of the Book, a fornicating Muslim man can only marry a fornicating Muslim woman or a fornicating woman from the People of the Book. He cannot marry a polytheist woman, but non-Muslim, fornicating men can. Where is the puzzle?

See the OP for the breakdown of all situations that can be concluded from 24:3 in light of other rulings in the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 18:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
What is clear throughout the discussion is that this is more of a case of puzzlement over the mention of "marrying polytheists" in 24:3, rather than a case of abrogation. Indeed, nothing in the language of 24:32 annuls the puzzling aspect of 24:3. Nobody said that after 24:3 was revealed, fornicating Muslims married polytheists then the practice stopped after another revelation. None of the usual abrogation bases is used here.

I don't understand why he is puzzled. Verse 24:3 makes a complete ruling: Fornicators can only marry fornicators or polytheists. Since a Muslim man can only marry a Muslim woman or a woman from the People of the Book, a fornicating Muslim man can only marry a fornicating Muslim woman or a fornicating woman from the People of the Book. He cannot marry a polytheist woman, but non-Muslim, fornicating men can. Where is the puzzle?

In fairness to the author, he did not say anything about puzzlement. That was my own reading of the arguments of the scholars in this abrogation claim.

Also, to be honest, the wording of the verse does not lend itself to the simple explanation that you mention. 24:3 says "fornicator or polytheist" rather than "fornicating Muslim or fornicating polytheist." It is completely reasonable to conclude that the "polytheist" in the verse is not restricted to someone who has fornicated as well.

Now here is the dilemma: If the polytheist does not mean people of the book here, this goes against the accepted rule disallowing Muslims (fornicators or otherwise) from marrying them. If polytheist does mean people of the book, then the last part of the verse "and this is forbidden on believers" would disallow believing Muslims from marrying people of the book at large.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Also, to be honest, the wording of the verse does not lend itself to the simple explanation that you mention. 24:3 says "fornicator or polytheist" rather than "fornicating Muslim or fornicating polytheist." It is completely reasonable to conclude that the "polytheist" in the verse is not restricted to someone who has fornicated as well.

Now here is the dilemma: If the polytheist does not mean people of the book here, this goes against the accepted rule disallowing Muslims (fornicators or otherwise) from marrying them. If polytheist does mean people of the book, then the last part of the verse "and this is forbidden on believers" would disallow believing Muslims from marrying people of the book at large.

The simple explanation I offered is derived from all the rulings of the Quran, not just 24:3. That is how rulings should be arrived at.

You are right that "polytheist" may apply to chaste polytheists and I point that out in the OP as I elaborate on the various combinations. Polytheist does not include people of the Book, and thus the other rule that disallows marrying them must be taken into account. That is how I made the conclusions I made in the OP. Let me know, after reading the OP, if any of the combinations I explained is incorrect.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The simple explanation I offered is derived from all the rulings of the Quran, not just 24:3. That is how rulings should be arrived at.

I agree, and I was not attempting to 'interpret'. Since our task here is to analyze the abrogation claim, I am not concerned here with deriving a ruling from other verses in the Quran. I am specifically concerned about the claim that the ruling in a specific verse was annulled by rulings in other verses. This is why I analyzed what the exact wording in 24:3 to see if it was rendered invalid by other verses.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 22:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I am not concerned here with deriving a ruling from other verses in the Quran. I am specifically concerned about the claim that the ruling in a specific verse was annulled by rulings in other verses. This is why I analyzed what the exact wording in 24:3 to see if it was rendered invalid by other verses.

I see your point. Mine was that there are three causes that drove people to claim abrogation:
  1. Failure to interpret the verse.
  2. Separating the verse from its context.
  3. Inability to relate a verse to other verses that address the same issue.
By resolving these barriers, one can explain why the abrogation claim is bunk. In the case at hand, the last barrier is the prominent one here IMHO and that's why I offered my humble conclusion of all scenarios.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 24:32 abrogate 24:3?
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2010, 01:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
there are three causes that drove people to claim abrogation:
  1. Failure to interpret the verse.
  2. Separating the verse from its context.
  3. Inability to relate a verse to other verses that address the same issue.
By resolving these barriers, one can explain why the abrogation claim is bunk. In the case at hand, the last barrier is the prominent one

Nice list! I think you should also post it under the validation rules thread (as a counterpart).

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis of what the marriage ruling is considering all the verses. Having said that, I think that 24:3 is a delicate case to handle. I don't have a good explanation for the specifics that are articulated in the verse, but that doesn't faze me. There is a good explanation, but I haven't found it yet (nor did any of the scholars, at least not to my satisfaction FWIW).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


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 19 Sep 2021, 20:04

All times are UTC

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