How valid is the claim that the verse "And the old man and the old woman, if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse..." has been abrogated?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : My Shaykh, regarding the verse that is said to have been abrogated, ?
The Shaykh : ...a punishment from Allah.
The questioner : Is the authenticity of this established?
The Shaykh : It is authentic without a doubt!
The questioner : It is established.
The Shaykh : This is what is called abrogation of recitation.
The questioner : Yes, the wording is abrogated but the ruling remains. However, if we look at the verse, my Shaykh, the old man and the old woman, if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, their ruling is stoning. So if a young married man commits unlawful sexual intercourse, how do we apply the verse to him? Or an old man who commits unlawful sexual intercourse and has not married?
The Shaykh : This is a discussion regarding the implication (mafhum). The scholars differed on the permissibility of taking and using it as evidence, resulting in two schools of thought: the school of the majority is that the implication is a proof, except when it contradicts an explicit text (manthuq); the Hanafi school is that the implication is not used as proof. The correct opinion is, as we said, the first one.
In that case, every student of knowledge knows that this implication in the verse whose recitation was abrogated contains a specific ruling for the old man and the old woman if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse. But is there not an explicit text that clarifies the answer to what I asked, namely that if they are young and married (muhsan), they are treated like the old man and the old woman? I am asking, is there not this text?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How do you know, and someone like you says "I do not know"? How do you not know? There is a difference between the muhsan and the non-muhsan. The muhsan is stoned, and the non-stoned [one] is flogged.
The questioner : I know.
The Shaykh : That is it!
The questioner : The non-muhsan.
The Shaykh : Is flogged.
The questioner : The muhsan.
The Shaykh : Is stoned. Good.
The questioner : The verse whose recitation was abrogated saysSunan Ibn Majah 2553Sahih (Darussalam) So we say, if a young muhsan man commits unlawful sexual intercourse, the verse does not say "old man"!
The Shaykh : I answered you: the verse [applies] by implication, not by explicit text!
The questioner : By implication.
The Shaykh : If the implication contradicts the explicit text, it is not a proof! For example, "Do not consume usury in increased multiples!" Understood?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Understood that if the usury is not in increased multiples, it is permissible! But the explicit text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, its explicit wording, because the explicit text corresponds to the implication and the implication corresponds to the explicit text, the texts mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah forbid usury absolutely, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted[Al-Baqarah 2:279] and the hadiths, and there are many of them . 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: you remember the text, and you are the one who memorizes [it] who distinguishes between the muhsan and the non-muhsan.
The questioner : The verse is[An-Nur 24:2].
The Shaykh : ...the muhsan and the non-muhsan.
The questioner : This is for the non-muhsan. This verse[An-Nur 24:2] is for the non-muhsan.
The Shaykh : But there is no specification of the muhsan. What is the ruling for the muhsan?
The questioner : Stoning... the verse is abrogated in recitation.
The Shaykh : Do we need the explicit abrogation from other than the verse whose recitation was abrogated?
The questioner : Is there not a verse regarding stoning?
The Shaykh : It is not necessary that the ruling be in the Sunnah, do you not know!
The questioner : From the Sunnah!
The Shaykh : Ah!
The questioner : ...the hadith of Ma'iz and others.
The Shaykh : Many hadiths, and very many!
The questioner : Seven cases in the time of the Messenger of Allah, and he established [the punishment].
The Shaykh : How?
The Shaykh : Seven cases where they confessed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he established the hadd upon them.
The Shaykh : ...The texts of the Sunnah are very numerous on this matter, and these texts are definitive in indication and explicit in indication, not by implication. Therefore, these texts clarify that the implication of the verse of the old man and the old woman is not acted upon, because its implication contradicts the explicit wording of the other texts, as we exemplified earlier regarding usury. In that case, it is not said that the verse is abrogated in recitation and ruling, but only in recitation, and the ruling is established specifically for the old man and the old woman if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse. But the implication of the verse is not established, because the general is abrogated by the specific, and the absolute is restricted by the restricted, something of that nature. And therefore, the objection you raised does not hold, because this objection applies to clear verses (muhkam) that are not abrogated in recitation nor in ruling. For example,[An-Nisa 4:23]. This is an absolute text. So if a woman breastfed a child one or two times, or sucked it once or twice, the absolute verse includes this infant. But when the texts in the Sunnah came, they clarified that the breastfeeding that creates a prohibition is what grows the flesh and sets the bone, which is five full breastfeedings, and so on. In that case, the verse is not taken in its absoluteness, but by what the Sunnah clarified of its restriction, as mentioned in the texts we cited. On this basis, the treatment of the verse whose recitation was abrogated is clear.
And the old man and the old woman, if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, then stone them both, a punishment from Allah.
والشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتةThe Shaykh : ...a punishment from Allah.
The questioner : Is the authenticity of this established?
The Shaykh : It is authentic without a doubt!
The questioner : It is established.
The Shaykh : This is what is called abrogation of recitation.
The questioner : Yes, the wording is abrogated but the ruling remains. However, if we look at the verse, my Shaykh, the old man and the old woman, if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, their ruling is stoning. So if a young married man commits unlawful sexual intercourse, how do we apply the verse to him? Or an old man who commits unlawful sexual intercourse and has not married?
The Shaykh : This is a discussion regarding the implication (mafhum). The scholars differed on the permissibility of taking and using it as evidence, resulting in two schools of thought: the school of the majority is that the implication is a proof, except when it contradicts an explicit text (manthuq); the Hanafi school is that the implication is not used as proof. The correct opinion is, as we said, the first one.
In that case, every student of knowledge knows that this implication in the verse whose recitation was abrogated contains a specific ruling for the old man and the old woman if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse. But is there not an explicit text that clarifies the answer to what I asked, namely that if they are young and married (muhsan), they are treated like the old man and the old woman? I am asking, is there not this text?
The questioner : I do not know.
The Shaykh : How do you know, and someone like you says "I do not know"? How do you not know? There is a difference between the muhsan and the non-muhsan. The muhsan is stoned, and the non-stoned [one] is flogged.
The questioner : I know.
The Shaykh : That is it!
The questioner : The non-muhsan.
The Shaykh : Is flogged.
The questioner : The muhsan.
The Shaykh : Is stoned. Good.
The questioner : The verse whose recitation was abrogated says
And if an old man and an old woman commit adultery
الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنياThe Shaykh : I answered you: the verse [applies] by implication, not by explicit text!
The questioner : By implication.
The Shaykh : If the implication contradicts the explicit text, it is not a proof! For example, "Do not consume usury in increased multiples!" Understood?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Understood that if the usury is not in increased multiples, it is permissible! But the explicit text of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, its explicit wording, because the explicit text corresponds to the implication and the implication corresponds to the explicit text, the texts mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah forbid usury absolutely, as in the saying of Allah the Exalted
But if you repent, you may have your principal - [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged.
فإن تبتم فلكم رؤوس أموالكم لا تظلمون ولا تظلمونA dirham of usury that a man consumes is more severe with Allah than thirty-six acts of unlawful sexual intercourse.
درهم ربا يأكله الرجل أشد عند الله من ست وثلاثين زنيةDo not consume usury in increased multiples.
لا تأكلوا الربا أضعافا مضاعفةThe questioner : The verse is
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.
والزانية والزاني فاجلدوا كل واحدة منهما مائة جلدة ولا تأخذكم فيهما رأفة في دين الله إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر وليشهد عذابهما طائفة من المؤمنينThe Shaykh : ...the muhsan and the non-muhsan.
The questioner : This is for the non-muhsan. This verse
lash each one of them with a hundred lashes
فاجلدوا كل واحدة منهما مائة جلدةThe Shaykh : But there is no specification of the muhsan. What is the ruling for the muhsan?
The questioner : Stoning... the verse is abrogated in recitation.
The Shaykh : Do we need the explicit abrogation from other than the verse whose recitation was abrogated?
The questioner : Is there not a verse regarding stoning?
The Shaykh : It is not necessary that the ruling be in the Sunnah, do you not know!
The questioner : From the Sunnah!
The Shaykh : Ah!
The questioner : ...the hadith of Ma'iz and others.
The Shaykh : Many hadiths, and very many!
The questioner : Seven cases in the time of the Messenger of Allah, and he established [the punishment].
The Shaykh : How?
The Shaykh : Seven cases where they confessed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he established the hadd upon them.
The Shaykh : ...The texts of the Sunnah are very numerous on this matter, and these texts are definitive in indication and explicit in indication, not by implication. Therefore, these texts clarify that the implication of the verse of the old man and the old woman is not acted upon, because its implication contradicts the explicit wording of the other texts, as we exemplified earlier regarding usury. In that case, it is not said that the verse is abrogated in recitation and ruling, but only in recitation, and the ruling is established specifically for the old man and the old woman if they commit unlawful sexual intercourse. But the implication of the verse is not established, because the general is abrogated by the specific, and the absolute is restricted by the restricted, something of that nature. And therefore, the objection you raised does not hold, because this objection applies to clear verses (muhkam) that are not abrogated in recitation nor in ruling. For example,