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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:60 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 02:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 81-82, says that some exegetes he did not name have claimed that the sentence, "And they ask you what they should spend. Say, 'The excess [beyond needs].' " in

was abrogated by the Zakah verse,

He rejects the claim and says that the Zakah verse specifies whom to give alms to and the Sunna specified its qualifications. That has nothing to do with 2:219 which talks about spending in general, how that should be from money in excess of basic needs. Dr. Jum`a cites the hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in which he says, "Whoever has an extra beast of burden, let him donate it to him who doesn't have any. Whoever has extra food, let him donate to him who has no food." Rated authentic and reported by Muslim, Abu-Daawood and Ibn Hanbal and narrated by Abu-Sa`eed Al-Khudri who commented, "He kept naming property to donate until we thought we had no right to any of our property!"

Al-Khazraji says in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 227, that it was Ibn Abbaas who made the claim. He added that Ibn Abbaas understood العفو (excess) to mean "change" as in a few coins. Al-Khazraji says that the majority disagreed and said that the word means the Zakah and still others said it means voluntary spending.

The word does mean "little off the top", i.e., excess that will not be needed for basic needs. That is the precondition for Zakah, so there is no cause to claim abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 02:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ad-Dhahhaak,
As-Suddi,
Unnamed exegetes.

Against:
The majority (according to Al-Khazraji and An-Nahhaas) including Qataada, Makki,
Mujaahid, An-Nahhaas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Asfahaani, Muhammad Abduh (according to Al-Ghaali),
Al-Ghaali,
Dr. Ali Jum`a.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 13:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ad-Dhahhaak,
As-Suddi,
Unnamed exegetes.

Against:
The majority (according to Al-Khazraji and An-Nahhaas) including Qataada, Makki,
Mujaahid, An-Nahhaas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Asfahaani, Muhammad Abduh (according to Al-Ghaali),
Al-Ghaali,
Dr. Ali Jum`a.

A new claim! Tallying all the abrogation claims will be a challenge, as there seems to be a number of unattributed claims.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 17:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
A new claim! Tallying all the abrogation claims will be a challenge, as there seems to be a number of unattributed claims.

To ease that task, I indexed all the cases we've examined in this post. As of this writing, we've studied and commented on 312 cases!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 10:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
As of this writing, we've studied and commented on 312 cases!

:shock: :shock: :shock:

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:60 abrogate 2:219?
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2020, 16:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 80-84, Al-Ghaali rejects this abrogation claim and offers these points of refutation,

  • Mujaahid said 2:219 is talking about the Zakah.

  • An-Nahhaas leans toward the opinion that 2:219 is talking about something other than, and in addition to the Zakah because the word العفو means largess, the opposite of effort. He cited a hadeeth by the Prophet (PBUH), reported and authenticated by Muslim:
    خير الصدقة ما كان عن ظهر غنى، واليد العليا خير من اليد السفلى، وابدأ بمن تعول

    Translation: The best charity is that from abundance. The giving hand is better than the receiving hand. Start with your dependents.

  • Al-Ghaali shows that Ibn Abbaas's conclusion of Naskh is a specification rather than an abrogation and notes that this conflation of meanings was common among the early scholars. The reason it is an elaboration and not abrogation is because Ibn Abbaas explained that spending on parents became a mandate and not a charity nor a Zakah. Al-Hasan Al-Basri saw 2:219 as referring to optional spending on all people other than those who may not be given a Zakah, e.g., parents.

  • Ibn Al-Jawzi rejected the abrogation claim and wrote that the verse simply tells about a question that was asked and gives the answer. People asked what portion of their money may they spend and the answer is the excess, the portion that is easy to spend!

  • Ar-Raazi echoed Al-Asfahaani's opinion that if the excess means the Zakah, then 2:219 refers to the Zakah in general terms which were specified in the Sunna.

  • If 2:219 was not about a mandate, it would have specified it, but since it is unspecified in amount, then it must be a recommendation only.

  • Muhammad Abduh agrees that excess is a term that can apply to Zakah too, but he opined that 2:219 is talking about voluntary charity.

  • Some scholars have opined that there is a right in wealth beyond the Zakah. They cite for evidence,

Al-Ghaali then brings up an astute observation that Muhammad Abduh made. Verse 2:219 combines spending on charity with intoxication in the same passage in order to highlight a stark contrast between two groups of people, those who lavishly spend on illicit matters and those who generously spend on virtuous concerns!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 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 28 Mar 2024, 14:58

All times are UTC

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