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  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2010, 21:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Some scholars have stated that the inheritance verses starting with 4:11-12 have abrogated the will verses, such as 2:180. Here are these verses,



is claimed to have been abrogated by



It is easy to see why many would think that an abrogation has taken place here. In a Muslim country, the Islamic law of inheritance is how estates are probated and therefore a will stating instructions which are contrary to Islamic law will be overruled by the probate court.

But what do Muslims do in a non-Muslim country or for that matter any country where the Islamic law of inheritance is not followed or enforced? The answer is that the probate court there will first check the decedent's will and rule per its instructions unless they are in violation of the laws of the land. Thus, 2:180 was not abrogated because Muslims still need it in such case.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 06:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
In his book, تفسير الأصفهاني (Exegesis of Al-Asfahaani), Dr. Khidhr Nabha reports that Al-Asfahaani rejected that 2:180 was abrogated. He saw it as a general ruling and 4:11-12 as specific.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 06:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
For:
The majority, including Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umar, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and Al-Hasan (in one report),
Al-Husayn, Ash-Sha`bi, An-Nakh`i, Ad-Dhahhaak, Taawoos, Al-`Alaa' ibn Zayd, Muslim ibn Yasaar, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Abi-Najee`, Ibn Al-`Aaliya (according to Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni),
Mujaahid and `Ataa' (who opined for a partial abrogation),
Ibn Shihaab (Az-Zuhri?), Zayd ibn Aslam (according to Makki),
Ikrima (quoted by Ibn Salaam),
Qataada, Ar-Rabee`, Iyaas ibn Mu`aawiya, Shurayh, As-Suddi, Naafi` (according to At-Tabari, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Yahya ibn Al-Husayn ibn Al-Qaasim aka Al-Haadi, Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn and Al-Manssor Billah (according to Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani),
Maalik,
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Makki,
Ibn Al`Arabi (implied by one report),
Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani,
Abu-Ash-Shaykh Al-Haafizh (quoted by Al-Hamdaani),
Ar-Raazi (implied by one report),
Ibn Salaama,
As-Suyooti,
An-Nahhaas (in one report),
Az-Zurqaani,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Ash-Sha`raawi,
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi and Dr. Hilmi Abdul-Haadi (according to Haani Taahir).
Dr. Mannaa` Al-Qattaan (implied).

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (in another report),
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer (in another report according to Ibn Katheer),
Qataada and Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas (in another report),
Muqaatil ibn Hayyaan,
Ash-Sha`bi, An-Nakh`i (another report),
Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Taawoos, Ad-Dhahhaak (in another report),
Masrooq,
Muslim ibn Yasaar, Al-Alaa' ibn Yazeed, (in another report),
Jaabir ibn Zayd, Abdul-Malik ibn Ya`la, Abul-`Aaliya, Ash-Sha`bi, Abdul-Malik ibn Amr and Laahiq ibn Hameed (according to At-Tabari, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Bakr ibn Al`Arabi (in another report),
At-Tabari,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi (in another report by Al-Ghaali, page 68, quoting Ar-Raazi's exegesis volume 5 page 53),
An-Nahhaas (in another report by Dr. Az-Zalmi, page 124),
At-Tabari,
Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri (quoted by Al-Jabri and Haani Taahir),
Al-Qurtubi,
Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood (quoted by Al-Jabri and Haani Taahir),
Al-Aloosi, As-Saawi (according to Dr. Az-Zalmi),
Muhammad Abduh and M. Rasheed Ridha,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Mustafa Khafaaji (in his book صفوف الكلام في أصول الأحكام, page 124, quoted by Al-Jabri),
Al-Jabri,
Ibn Al-Jaarood (implied, quoted by Al-Jabri),
Abun-Nasr (implied by his narration that Al-Hasan, Taawoos and others said 2:180 was not abrogated),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. Ali Jum`a,
Haani Taahir,
Jamaal `Ataaya,
Professor Ali Hasaballah (implied).

Unclear:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (appears leaning toward abrogation).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 or the Sunna abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 23 Apr 2010, 06:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, agrees that 2:180 is not abrogated. His argument is that 4:11-12 do mention a will/bequest, thus 2:180 is included in 4:11-12. If 2:180 was abrogated, then bequesting to parents and relatives is no longer valid. He says it is valid. He rejects the authority of the hadeeth لا وصية لوارث (there shall be no bequest to an heir) saying that it not ubiquitous. That is a good point, but it has been the consensus of scholars in regards to inheritance law that bequests to inheriting heirs are not honored, said Ibn Al-Munzhir according to Al-Areedh.

He also says that Ash-Sha`bi and An-Nakh`i both disagreed and said that the command in 2:180 is only an encouragement, not a mandate. I find that to be a weak argument, since the verse starts with the words كتب عليكم (It has been written upon you).

He also mentioned that Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Taawoos, Al-Alaa' ibn Yazeed, Muslim ibn Yasaar and Ad-Dhahhaak all said 2:180 is not abrogated.

He also said that Muhammad Abduh rejected the abrogation claim here saying 2:180 was timed and there is not even proof that it was not revealed before 4:11-12. I find both points to be weak arguments: Chapter 4 was revealed after Chapter 2 and there is no language in 2:180 to suggest it is timed.

But 2:180 is not abrogated for the reason I suggested above, which I haven't seen discussed anywhere.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 or the Sunna abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 03:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 53-56, refutes this claim on two bases,

  1. Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani's interpretation, mentioned above, and
  2. His belief that bequests can be given to inheriting heirs.

He brings for evidence of the latter, Al-Asfahaani's and Az-Zamakhshari's ruling that it is allowed. Also, the opinion matching them of Dr. Muhammad Ali As-Saayis, former dean of Islamic law faculty at Al-Azhar.

He discussed the hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, "There shall be no bequest to an heir", and mentioned that exegetist Ar-Raazi doubted its strong authenticity.

I don't see any contradiction between the hadeeth, verse 2:180 and the inheritance verses, 4:11-12. Verse 2:180 mandates not leaving heirs without a will. That was the law before detailed inheritance laws were revealed in 4:11-12 and others. As I mentioned above, a will is still mandated because Islamic laws of inheritance may not be enforced in some places. Dr. Hijaazi mentioned that one Muslim country does not apply them and uses the Swiss law instead! If that's the case in some Muslim countries, then what about non-Muslim countries where many Muslims live and die? For those a will, conforming to Islamic inheritance law is a must.

The hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, simply specifies that a bequest cannot be made to an heir who will inherit, either by a will or by Islamic law. Why? Because the testator could circumvent the law and favor one heir over the other. This is why God finishes the inheritance verses by saying, "Your parents and your children - you do not know whom is more beneficial to you. This is a mandate from God."

4:11-12 did not abrogate 2:180 or anything else; it detailed the law that pleases God. It is how a will should be written if that law is not enforced in the testator's country. And the Sunna made two points clear: a bequest cannot exceed one third of the will and cannot be given to an heir who does inherit otherwise. God knows best.

This is the first weak argument I've read so far from Dr. As-Saqqa.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 08:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 335-336, refutes this case by noting that 4:11-12 do honor a bequest and therefore do not abrogate 2:180. Thus, he concludes, the only piece of the claim left is that the abrogating is the hadeeth, "No bequest for an heir." He rejects that a narration of people can overrule the Quran.

I got the impression that he does not object to giving parents and relatives in a bequest even as they normally inherit by Islamic law. I don't agree. I read 2:180 as setting the principle of a will whenever and wherever Islamic law of inheritance is not applied. When Islamic law is applied, then 4:11-12 is how heirs inherit and the hadeeth too applies to the bequest if any. In fact, I believe that it is incumbent upon Muslims who have reason to believe that Islamic law will not be applied to divide their estate after they die, that they must write a will that conforms to Islamic law of inheritance.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 02:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
In his book النسخ عند الأصوليين (Abrogation per the Foundationsists), pages 80-81, Dr. Ali Jum`a, the Mufti of Egypt, rejects this abrogation claim on four grounds,
  1. 4:11-12 simply do not annul wills/bequests; rather they confirm them.
  2. Many scholars have ruled that a bequest can always be made for as much as one third of the estate. Some said even more if the heirs do not mind.
  3. The relatives mentioned in 2:180 could be ones who do not inherit by law.
  4. The parents mentioned in 2:180 could be ones who do not inherit by law because they are not Muslim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 13:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book النسخ عند الأصوليين (Abrogation per the Foundationsists), pages 80-81, Dr. Ali Jum`a, the Mufti of Egypt, rejects this abrogation claim on four grounds,
  1. 4:11-12 simply do not annul wills/bequests; rather they confirm them.
  2. Many scholars have ruled that a bequest can always be made for as much as one third of the estate. Some said even more if the heirs do not mind.
  3. The relatives mentioned in 2:180 could be ones who do not inherit by law.
  4. The parents mentioned in 2:180 could be ones who do not inherit by law because they are not Muslim.

Good points.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2010, 14:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 167-177, refutes this claim. One of the particularly interesting points he mentions is a quote by Ash-Shawkaani from his book فتح القدير, volume 1, pages 433-435. He noticed the clause غير مضار (without harm) in 4:12. He understood it as a limitation on bequests, i.e., a bequest cannot be for the purpose of, or resulting in, harm to the heirs. This can happen, for instance, when the testator gives a bequest to an heir who would normally inherit, thus increasing his or her share. That is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "There shall be no bequest to an heir."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:11-12 abrogate 2:180?
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2010, 07:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 167-177, refutes this claim. One of the particularly interesting points he mentions is a quote by Ash-Shawkaani from his book فتح القدير, volume 1, pages 433-435. He noticed the clause غير مضار (without harm) in 4:12. He understood it as a limitation on bequests, i.e., a bequest cannot be for the purpose of, or resulting in, harm to the heirs. This can happen, for instance, when the testator gives a bequest to an heir who would normally inherit, thus increasing his or her share. That is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, "There shall be no bequest to an heir."

Not sure I agree. If the harm is the reduction of one's share, that will result from any bequest, even if it is to a non-heir. If the harm is seeing another heir get more than they are 'entitled' to, then there is a point, although calling it harm is a bit shaky.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  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 19 Jun 2018, 21:42

All times are UTC

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