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: 01 Sep 2010, 20:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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.

I agree with you that it is quite obvious that the hadeeth confirms 2:234 and has nothing to do with 2:240.

The logic of using this hadeeth to confirm the abrogation claim is disturbing. There is nothing more in the hadeeth than what 2:234 clearly states already, so is the logic here that 2:234 and 2:240 are competing and the hadeeth is breaking the tie or something?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2010, 15:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, who rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 191-196, believes that the word وصية in 2:240 does not mean a will that a husband should write, but a recommendation from God to the heirs. He says that because no one can anticipate his death, it cannot be that God orders men to write a will guaranteeing their wives a year of financial support and housing. He believes it's God's ruling and no will need to be written. I agree with his conclusion but not with his reasoning, because if it is the case that a will must be written, it can always be part of the marriage contract.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 18:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Haani Taahir makes the same conclusion as I do, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 162, saying, "The widow must stay in morning four months and ten days and may stay up to a year in her late husband's home and be supported throughout from his estate."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2010, 05:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 86-91, refutes this claim and brings up a number of important points:

  • Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani presented a clever parsing of verse 2:240. Why am I not surprised? He said that the majority have parsed the word وصية as an implicit imperative, i.e., "Let them bequest..." That is a valid parsing. However, another equally valid parsing, Al-Asfahaani suggested, is that it is an apposition! That is, "Those who die and leave a will for their wives stating that they should stay in the house for a year..."

    This interpretation is more valid, because that was the custom of the Arabs before Islam. God is allowing that custom to continue, but only if the wife wants it. In verse 2:240, God is now giving the wife the option to leave the house before the year ends, for example if she wants to marry. That was not possible for her before Islam.

    The difference between the two parsings is that the first one attributes the reference to God, while the latter attributes it to the decedent.

    Ar-Raazi, Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi, M. Rasheed Ridha, and Haani Taahir all love and favor Al-Asfahaani's interpretation. I like it too, but don't see it necessary to refute the claim.

  • Ar-Raazi asks the obvious question: How can a preceding verse abrogate a later one? He says that the burden of proof that this can happen is upon those who claim it. Ridha concurs.

  • Ar-Raazi, Abduh, Ridha, Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Abu-Zahra and Haani Taahir all agree with Mujaahid's interpretation. Namely, the two verses specify a duty on the widow to stay four months and ten days at her late husband's house, and an option to stay for the rest of a year. Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood says that this is true even if the house ends up as the property of other than the widow's children.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 or 4:12 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2010, 16:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I thought that it was about 2:240 abrogating 2:234, but it was about the other way around. That is what caught my eye first: that a latter verse is abrogated by a former one!

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, who refutes this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 267-272 (items 1155-1165), and lists it in the last chapter of his book, entitled, "Cases famous that they were abrogated but they are not", writes the opinion of Mujaahid that 2:240 abrogated the practice that a widow had to stay in her late husband's house for a year. He said that the mandate became four months and ten days, and the rest of the year is optional and up to her.

`Ataa' agrees but says that inheritance verses (4:12) abrogated the residence requirement; a widow may mourn anywhere she wants but she is not entitled to residence support.

Dr. Zayd correctly sees the two verses like you do, Pragmatic, namely that 2:234 specifies a duty on the widow, while 2:240 specifies a right for the widow. Two different concerns and therefore neither one can abrogate the other.

Dr. Zayd propounded the various opinions of the scholars about these two verses, as explained by At-Tabari. At-Tabari leaned toward Qataada's opinion, i.e., only residence was abrogated by inheritance. He cites for evidence a hadeeth narrated by Furay`a, sister of Abu-Sa`eed Al-Khudri, in which she asked the Prophet (PBUH) to let her leave the house of her late husband and go to her parents house before the end of the mourning period of four months and ten days and he did not allow her. Bear in mind that she was alone in the house!

Dr. Zayd correctly concludes that the hadeeth does not address residence at all, it addresses the mandatory mourning period, thus it cannot be used for evidence that the residence allowance is abrogated. Was that really hard to conclude? The hadeeth confirms 2:234 and neither it nor 2:240 speak about residence.

Dr. Zayd does not refute the claim that 4:12 abrogated 2:240. He may have thought it was too trivial a claim and left it out. Verse 4:12 indeed has no prohibition against residence. It simply specifies the share of a widow in her husband's estate when it is divided between heirs. In other words, 4:12, 2:234 and 2:240 can all be enforced together without conflict, so there is no cause to claim any of them abrogating any other.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 00:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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?

I think that she cannot leave on day 1, she has to stay the full duration of `Idda, four months and ten days, at least. But the rest of your argument is rational and obvious from the verses. Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek), in his book أصول الفقه, page 252, sees it as one verse obligating the widow to stay four months and ten days and the other one gives her the option to leave after that or stay for the rest of the year.

I agree and add that if she chooses to stay, her husband's heirs are obligated to support her for the rest of the year, after which she cashes her inheritance and leaves. If she elects to leave after `Idda, she can cash in her inheritance then. If a year passes and she still would like to stay, it is then up to her relatives to let her, but they are no longer obligated to support her. She cashes her inheritance then and supports herself.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 or 4:12 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 08:30 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Zayd does not refute the claim that 4:12 abrogated 2:240. He may have thought it was too trivial a claim and left it out. Verse 4:12 indeed has no prohibition against residence. It simply specifies the share of a widow in her husband's estate when it is divided between heirs.

The fallacy that people who claim that the widow's inheritance share abrogates her residence right is that the residence right is a debt on the estate of the man that is due to the widow. Shares are only distributed after debts are paid, and debts may well be for some of the people who will get shares (unlike the prohibition in wills of giving someone who already has a share something additional, based on the hadeeth).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 08:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
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?

I think that she cannot leave on day 1, she has to stay the full duration of `Idda, four months and ten days, at least.

I was my usual abstract self :D saying that 2:240 in and of itself does not obligate the widow to stay in her late husband's house for even 1 day. Certainly 2:234 creates such an obligation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2011, 00:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
I think that she cannot leave on day 1, she has to stay the full duration of `Idda, four months and ten days, at least.

I was my usual abstract self :D saying that 2:240 in and of itself does not obligate the widow to stay in her late husband's house for even 1 day. Certainly 2:234 creates such an obligation.

I take this back :). The obligation of 2:234 is for abstaining during the grace period. Unless there is an external rule to impose the location of the woman during the grace period, nothing in 2:234 prohibits the widow from observing that period in her parents' home for example.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:234 abrogate 2:240?
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2011, 05:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I take this back :). The obligation of 2:234 is for abstaining during the grace period. Unless there is an external rule to impose the location of the woman during the grace period, nothing in 2:234 prohibits the widow from observing that period in her parents' home for example.

By golly, I think you're right. 2:234 says nothing about residence. Good observation.

_________________
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 13 Nov 2019, 13:05

All times are UTC

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