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  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 16:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Some scholars have said that 2:183 states that Muslims are required to fast just like prior people did, but that was abrogated by 2:187 which allows Muslims to mate with their spouses during the eves of fasting, something which prior people were not allowed to do. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


This one seems easy to me. What 2:183 states is that fasting has become mandated on Muslims just like it was mandated on prior people, evidenced by the words كما كتب. It does not say that the manner or rituals are the same; it only means the mandate is the same. Therefore, no abrogation case need be made.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 106-107, confirms this understanding and attributes it to "others" without naming them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 17:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
I agree with you. There is no case for abrogation here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 07:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
In his book, "Tafseer Al-Asfahaani", Dr. Khidhr Nabha reports that Al-Asfahaani rejected the notion that 2:183 was abrogated and says that the allowance in 2:187 to mate with wives on fasting eves did not abrogate anything because it was never forbidden in the first place. It was forbidden for the Christians but never for Muslims. Dr. Nabha reported that Ar-Raazi showed six arguments proving that the prohibition was in effect, but Al-Asfahaani rejected them all. Dr. Nabha did not list the arguments or the counter-arguments. I wish he did.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 07:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
For:
The majority, including
Abul-`Aaliya, As-Suddi,
Ibn Abbaas,
Ar-Rabee` (implied, mentioned by Dr. Zayd),
`Ataa' (according to Shu`la),
Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani (implied),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Habeeb Al-Andalusi,
Makki,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Hibatullah Ibn Salaama,
As-Suyooti,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh.

Against:
Qataada (implied, mentioned by Dr. Zayd),
As-Shu`bi, Al-Hasan and Mujaahid (according to Dr. Faaris),
At-Tabari (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Az-Zurqaani,
Al-Asfahaani,
Al-Jabaa'i,
Al-Aloosi,
Ibn Al-Arabi,
Ar-Raazi,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 07:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book, "Tafseer Al-Asfahaani", Dr. Khidhr Nabha reports that Al-Asfahaani rejected the notion that 2:183 was abrogated and says that the allowance in 2:187 to mate with wives on fasting eves did not abrogate anything because it was never forbidden in the first place! It was forbidden for the Christians but never for Muslims. Dr. Nabha reported that Ar-Raazi showed six arguments proving that the prohibition was in effect, but Al-Asfahaani rejected them all. Dr. Nabha did not list the arguments or the counter-arguments.

Even if it was forbidden before, that would not be through a verse in the Quran hence the abrogation claim would fail rule # 1 quoted here:

Quote:
Is the abrogated text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not, the discussion is irrelevant to the scope of this project.

See, I am getting good at applying your rules. :D

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2010, 02:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi wrote,

الآية التاسعة قوله تعالى "يا أيها الذين آمنوا كتب عليكم الصيام كما كتب على الذين من قبلكم" الآية 183 مدنية البقرة 2 منسوخة وذلك أنهم كانوا إذا فطروا أكلوا وشربوا وجامعوا النساء ما لم يصلوا العشاء الأخيرة ويناموا قبل ذلك، ثم نسخ الله ذلك بقوله تعالى "أحل لكم ليلة الصيام الرفث إلى نسائكم" إلى قوله "وابتغوا ما كتب الله لكم" 187 البقرة مدنية، في شأن عمر رضي الله عنه والأنصاري، لأنهما جامعا معا ونزل في صرفه "وكلوا واشربوا حتى يتبين لكم الخيط الأبيض من الخيط الأسود من الفجر" 187 مدنية البقرة 2

He points out that the practice of the Sahaaba on fasting eves was that they would sleep with their wives only before they prayed Ishaa' and went to bed. He says that 2:187 was revealed after Umar (RA) and a Medina man slept with their wives one night in Ramadhaan, presumably after Ishaa' and thus confirmed that what they did was not wrong.

It's not clear why that was the practice. The implication from 2:183 is that this was the practice of the people of the Book, and therefore Muslims did likewise. I don't know why they thought that was the mandate in 2:183 if the Prophet (PBUH) did not say it was.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2010, 04:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh starts out with the same reasoning I offered above. He says, "Simile is not necessarily in every aspect, therefore the simile in the noble verse does not necessitate what the scholars have said of mandating the echoing of the people of the Book in their way of fasting...There is no contradiction. And when there is no contradiction, abrogation is void."

He proceeds to show the opinions saying that the simile is in the mandate, an opinion offered by Abu-Muslim and Al-Jabaa'i, thus the verse is not abrogated.

But then he says that the most likely verdict is that it is abrogated. His reason is that God uses the word أُحِلَّ (it has been made lawful) in 2:187,


He says that it means something was forbidden and then allowed. He said that the verse also named the time by saying ليلة الصيام (the fasting eve). He follows that saying that God further says علم الله أنكم كنتم تختانون أنفسكم (God knows that you were betraying yourselves). He said betrayal is only in doing something forbidden. Then he says God says فتاب عليكم وعفا عنكم (then He forgave you and pardoned you), which implies they were sinning.

These are great arguments. Now let me answer them humbly:
  • The word أُحِلَّ does not necessarily mean that something was forbidden before. Consider,

    Sea food was never forbidden to Muslims before.
  • The phrase تختانون أنفسكم does not necessarily mean they did something wrong; it can mean that they thought they were doing something wrong. It also may mean that because they misunderstood, they may have stopped themselves from doing something allowed and that added an unnecessary hardship on them.
  • The clauses فتاب عليكم وعفا عنكم can be understood to mean that God is not reprimanding them for misunderstanding and thus they may breathe a sigh of relief. The word تاب has been used in that sense elsewhere, for example,

    The verse clearly says that they almost deviated. Thus they did not sin, just were about to. The verse's use of تاب therefore eases the minds of those who thought they had sinned by thinking of deviation.
    Also, the word عفا has been used elsewhere to mean "don't worry", for instance,

    Which clearly says that the past is forgotten; those who did that in the past need not agonize over it.

That's why I continue to believe that there is no reason to claim abrogation of 2:183. God knows best.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2010, 04:55 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Excellent post, Linguistic. I agree that Al-Areedh's argument is sound here, but your response is compelling. I have one remark.

Linguistic wrote:
His reason is that God uses the word أُحِلَّ (it has been made lawful) in 2:187. He says that it means something was forbidden and then allowed.
No. The connotation of أُحِلَّ does have a contrast in it, but not necessarily the contrast that Al-Areedh alludes to. I believe the contrast here is that the allowance is only during the night of the fast, but not during the day while fasting.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 04:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
These are great arguments. Now let me answer them humbly:
  • The word أُحِلَّ does not necessarily mean that something was forbidden before. Consider 5:96. Sea food was never forbidden to Muslims before.
  • The phrase تختانون أنفسكم does not necessarily mean they did something wrong; it can mean that they thought they were doing something wrong. It also may mean that because they misunderstood, they may have stopped themselves from doing something allowed and that added an unnecessary hardship on them.
  • The clauses فتاب عليكم وعفا عنكم can be understood to mean that God is not reprimanding them for misunderstanding and thus they may breathe a sigh of relief. The word تاب has been used in that sense elsewhere, for example, 9:117.
    The verse clearly says that they almost deviated. Thus they did not sin, just were about to. The verse's use of تاب therefore eases the minds of those who thought they had sinned by thinking of deviation.
    Also, the word عفا has been used elsewhere to mean "don't worry", for instance, 5:95, which clearly says that the past is forgotten; those who did that in the past need not agonize over it.

Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 58-59, discusses these four terms. About أُحِلَّ, he says like I said and gives more examples, such as اليوم أحل لكم الطيبات "Today, the good things are lawful to you" (5:5). Good things were never unlawful before to Muslims.

As for تختانون أنفسكم, he presents an excellent analysis of this phrase. First, he says, the word تختانون is related to خيانة the same way the word تكتسبون is related to كسب, i.e., to make an extra effort at it. Thus, the phrase means "you were trying hard to betray your nature: depriving yourselves unnecessarily from something you are entitled to but thought you were not." That explanation is better than mine and serves the same purpose: they avoided what they thought was forbidden but it wasn't.

As for فتاب عليكم, he says like I said and quotes 9:117 too and gives more examples, such as,

A person who killed someone by mistake did not commit a sin. Thus the phrase توبة من الله clearly means a release from guilt.

And finally, in regard to وعفا عنكم, Dr. As-Saqqa offers two interpretations: Pardoning an infraction, or easing. I humbly suggest that the linguistic meaning of the verb is to gloss over or skip or let pass. At any rate, it means the matter is gone; one need not fuss over it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 04:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Good analysis!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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 16 Nov 2018, 15:33

All times are UTC

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