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  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 2:237 abrogate 33:49?
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2010, 18:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

was claimed abrogated by


He writes,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا نكحتم المؤمنات ثم طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن فما لكم عليهن من عدة تعتدونها فمتعوهن". اختلف العلماء لمن هذه المتعة. فقال الأكثرون هي لمن لم يسم مهرا، لقوله تعالى في البقرة "أو تفرضوا لهن فريضة". وهل هي مستحبة أو واجبة. للعلماء فيها قولان: أحدهما أنها واجبة للمطلقة التي يسم لها مهرا إذا طلقها قبل الدخول، وعلى هذا الآية محكمة. وقال قوم المتعة واجبة لكل مطلقة بهذه الآية ثم نسخت بقوله "فنصف ما فرضتم". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد بن حنبل قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال بنا أبي قال بنا محمد بن سواء قال بنا سعيد عن قتادة عن الحسن وأبي العالية في هذه الآية "يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا نكحتم المؤمنات ثم طلقتموهن" قالا ليست بمنسوخة، لها نصف الصداق ولها المتاع. قال أحمد وبنا عبد الوهاب عن سعيد عن قتادة عن ابن المسيب قال هي منسوخة نسختها الآية التي في البقرة "وإن طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن وقد فرضتم لهن فريضة فنصف ما فرضتم" فصار لها نصف الصداق ولا متاع لها. قال سعيد وكان قتادة يأخذ بهذا وقال أحمد وبنا حسين عن شيبان عن قتادة "إذا نكحتم المؤمنات ثم طلقتموهن" الآية، قال قال سعيد بن المسيب ثم نسخ هذا الحرف المتعة "وإن طلقتموهن من قبل أن تمسوهن وقد فرضتم لهن فريضة فنصف ما فرضتم".
اهـ


The argument is about the Mut`a (compensation) at divorce, is it full or half in the case of celibate divorce. Al-Hasan and Abul-`Aaliya both said there is no abrogation here; the divorced woman gets half the dowry and full alimony. Sa`eed Ibn Al-Musayyib disagrees. He sees abrogation and ruled that she gets half the dowry and no alimony. He said that Qataada also ruled likewise.

I don't know why there is disagreement. Verse 2:237 speaks of dowry and 33:49 speaks of alimony. On that basis alone, there can be no abrogation. Both verses make up this consistent ruling,

"Believers, if you divorce believing women before consummating the marriage, then there is no grace period either of you must observe, but you still have to pay alimony. As for dowry in this case, get back half of it, or better yet, none of it. Do not get back more than half of it unless the woman or her agent allows you. Always remember to be magnanimous toward each other."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:237 abrogate 33:49?
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2010, 09:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I don't know why there is disagreement. Verse 2:237 speaks of dowry and 33:49 speaks of alimony. On that basis alone, there can be no abrogation.

That's the long and short of it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 18:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib,
Qataada.

Against:
Al-Hasan,
Abul`Aaliya,
Maalik (implied by his ruling that alimony is always recommended, quoted by Al-Jabri),
Makki (who said the half is a recommendation, not a mandate),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Ali Jum`a.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:237 abrogate 33:49?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 18:48 
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, pages 85-86, rejects this case on the basis of specification of a generality. His argument is that the compensation is in the case of not naming a dowry, but if a dowry was named, the divorcée gets half of it and no other compensation. He said that some scholars said that the compensation is mandatory if no dowry was named, and still preferred if it was specified and the divorcée gets half of it. That is, they still advise compensation in this case too.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:237 abrogate 33:49?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2013, 13:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In his refutation of this claim, Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 122-123, quotes Imaam Maalik proving that alimony is always recommended by citing,

Indeed, but I'd add that this verse make it a requirement and not just a recommendation, evidenced by the word حقا (obligation).

I think that scholars may have conflated two items here and that may be the reason they differed. They may have conflated dowry and alimony. But God has not conflated these two items. He always called dowry "a wage" and always called alimony "a compensation." Consider,

And

among others that call dowry a wage. On the other hand, consider

And

among others that call alimony a compensation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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 03 Aug 2020, 09:23

All times are UTC

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