How valid is the claim that the verse: (The old man and the old woman if they commit zina) has been abrogated?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, regarding the verse they say was abrogated: ?
The Shaykh : .
The questioner : How valid is the establishment of this?
The Shaykh : It is authentic, without doubt.
The questioner: It is established.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what is called abrogated in recitation.
The questioner : Yes, the wording is abrogated but the ruling remains, but if we look at the verse, Shaykh; that is,The Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, their ruling is stoning. Now, if a young married man commits zina; how do we apply the verse to him? Or an old man who commits zina and is not married?
The Shaykh : This is a discussion regarding the implication (mafhum), and the scholars differed on the permissibility of taking it and using it as evidence into two schools: the school of the majority is that the implication is a proof unless it contradicts an explicit text (manthuq), the Hanafi school is that the implication is not used as proof, and the correct opinion is - as we said - the first; at that point, every student of knowledge knows that this implication which came in the verse abrogated in recitation includes a specific ruling forThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, but is there not an explicit text that clarifies the answer to what you asked in the case where they are young and they are muhsan (married) that they are treated asThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : ? I am asking; is there not this text?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How? You know, and someone like you says: I do not know? How do you not know? There is no difference between the muhsan and the non-muhsan, so the muhsan is stoned and the non-muhsan?
The questioner : Yes, I know.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Yes, the non-muhsan?
The Shaykh : He is not stoned, he is flogged.
The questioner : The muhsan is stoned.
The Shaykh : He is stoned, okay.
The questioner : The verse abrogated in recitation says:, so we say: if a young muhsan commits zina, the verse does not contain it, does it say: ?
The Shaykh : I answered you, the verse is by implication, not by explicit text.
The questioner: By the concept.
The Shaykh : By implication, the implication if it contradicts the explicit text is not a proof; for example:, is it implied?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it implied? Its implication is that if the riba is not multiplied folds, is it permissible?! But the explicit text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, its explicit wording means; because the explicit text is opposed to the implication, the implication is opposed to the explicit text, so the texts mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah prohibit riba in an absolute manner, as in His saying - Exalted is He - :[Al-Baqarah 2:279], and the hadiths - and how many there are! - : , these are all explicit texts, what do these explicit texts do? They abrogate the implication of the verse: , the explicit distinction in the Qur'anic text, do you mention the text and you are the one who distinguishes between the muhsan and the non-muhsan?
The questioner : The verse?[An-Nur 24:2].
The Shaykh : No, it requires a distinction between the muhsan and the non-muhsan.
The questioner : This is for the non-muhsan, this verse - so flog them each a hundred lashes - is for the non-muhsan.
The Shaykh : But there is no specification of the muhsan, what is it? What is the ruling of the muhsan?
The questioner : Stoning, which is the verse abrogated in recitation.
The Shaykh : No, we need the explicit text other than the verse abrogated in recitation?
The questioner : Is there no verse regarding stoning?
The Shaykh : It is not necessary, the ruling is in the Sunnah, do you not know?
The questioner : It is from the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is the one who committed zina, a man from the Companions, Ma'iz and others.
The Shaykh : Many hadiths and very many.
The questioner : Seven cases in the time of the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - he established them.
The Shaykh : How?
The Shaykh : Seven cases they confessed in the time of the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - and he established the hadd upon them.
The Shaykh : The important thing is that there are many texts in the Sunnah on the subject, and these texts are definitive in indication and explicit in indication, not by implication; therefore these texts clarify that the verseThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : their implication or the implication of the verse is not acted upon; because the implication contradicts the explicit text of the other texts, as we exemplified earlier regarding riba; at that point, the verse is not said to be abrogated in recitation and ruling, only in recitation, and the ruling is established regardingThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, but the implication of the verse is not established; because it is like the abrogation of the general by the specific, and the restriction of the absolute by the restricted, this is of that nature; and therefore the objection you raised does not apply to the verseThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : ; because this objection applies to clear verses that are not abrogated in recitation nor abrogated in ruling; for example:[An-Nisa 4:23] this is an absolute text, so if she breastfed a child one suck or two, or one breastfeed or two; the generality or absoluteness of the verse includes this infant, but when the texts in the Sunnah came clarifying that the breastfeeding that prohibits marriage is what grew the flesh and strengthened the bone, it is five full breastfeeds, etc.; at that point, the verse is not taken by its absoluteness, but by what the Sunnah clarified of its restriction by what we mentioned of texts, on this basis the verse abrogated in recitation is treated, clear?
The questioner : Yes, yes, it is clear.
The old man and the old woman if they commit zina
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنياThe Shaykh :
The old man and the old woman if they commit zina, then stone them both as a punishment from Allah
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما نكالًا من اللهThe questioner : How valid is the establishment of this?
The Shaykh : It is authentic, without doubt.
The questioner: It is established.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what is called abrogated in recitation.
The questioner : Yes, the wording is abrogated but the ruling remains, but if we look at the verse, Shaykh; that is,The Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, their ruling is stoning. Now, if a young married man commits zina; how do we apply the verse to him? Or an old man who commits zina and is not married?
The Shaykh : This is a discussion regarding the implication (mafhum), and the scholars differed on the permissibility of taking it and using it as evidence into two schools: the school of the majority is that the implication is a proof unless it contradicts an explicit text (manthuq), the Hanafi school is that the implication is not used as proof, and the correct opinion is - as we said - the first; at that point, every student of knowledge knows that this implication which came in the verse abrogated in recitation includes a specific ruling forThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, but is there not an explicit text that clarifies the answer to what you asked in the case where they are young and they are muhsan (married) that they are treated asThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : ? I am asking; is there not this text?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How? You know, and someone like you says: I do not know? How do you not know? There is no difference between the muhsan and the non-muhsan, so the muhsan is stoned and the non-muhsan?
The questioner : Yes, I know.
The Shaykh : That is it.
The questioner : Yes, the non-muhsan?
The Shaykh : He is not stoned, he is flogged.
The questioner : The muhsan is stoned.
The Shaykh : He is stoned, okay.
The questioner : The verse abrogated in recitation says:
The old man and the old woman if they commit zina
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنياThe Shaykh
الشيخThe Shaykh : I answered you, the verse is by implication, not by explicit text.
The questioner: By the concept.
The Shaykh : By implication, the implication if it contradicts the explicit text is not a proof; for example:
Do not consume riba (usury or interest) in increased multiples
لَا تَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا أَضْعَافًا مُضَاعَفَةًThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it implied? Its implication is that if the riba is not multiplied folds, is it permissible?! But the explicit text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, its explicit wording means; because the explicit text is opposed to the implication, the implication is opposed to the explicit text, so the texts mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah prohibit riba in an absolute manner, as in His saying - Exalted is He - :
But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.
وَإِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ رُءُوسُ أَمْوَالِكُمْ لَا تَظْلِمُونَ وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَA dirham of riba that a man eats is more severe with Allah than thirty-six acts of zina
درهم ربا يأكله الرجل أشدُّ عند الله من ستٍّ وثلاثين زنيةDo not consume riba (usury or interest) in increased multiples
لَا تَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا أَضْعَافًا مُضَاعَفَةًThe questioner : The verse?
The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُمْ بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَThe Shaykh : No, it requires a distinction between the muhsan and the non-muhsan.
The questioner : This is for the non-muhsan, this verse - so flog them each a hundred lashes - is for the non-muhsan.
The Shaykh : But there is no specification of the muhsan, what is it? What is the ruling of the muhsan?
The questioner : Stoning, which is the verse abrogated in recitation.
The Shaykh : No, we need the explicit text other than the verse abrogated in recitation?
The questioner : Is there no verse regarding stoning?
The Shaykh : It is not necessary, the ruling is in the Sunnah, do you not know?
The questioner : It is from the Sunnah.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : This is the one who committed zina, a man from the Companions, Ma'iz and others.
The Shaykh : Many hadiths and very many.
The questioner : Seven cases in the time of the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - he established them.
The Shaykh : How?
The Shaykh : Seven cases they confessed in the time of the Messenger - (peace and blessings be upon him) - and he established the hadd upon them.
The Shaykh : The important thing is that there are many texts in the Sunnah on the subject, and these texts are definitive in indication and explicit in indication, not by implication; therefore these texts clarify that the verseThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : their implication or the implication of the verse is not acted upon; because the implication contradicts the explicit text of the other texts, as we exemplified earlier regarding riba; at that point, the verse is not said to be abrogated in recitation and ruling, only in recitation, and the ruling is established regardingThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : if they commit zina, but the implication of the verse is not established; because it is like the abrogation of the general by the specific, and the restriction of the absolute by the restricted, this is of that nature; and therefore the objection you raised does not apply to the verseThe Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : ; because this objection applies to clear verses that are not abrogated in recitation nor abrogated in ruling; for example:
your [milk] mothers who nursed you
وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمُ اللَّاتِي أَرْضَعْنَكُمْThe questioner : Yes, yes, it is clear.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.