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.  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2010, 08:55 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He brings up two more verses that have been argued as proof of abrogation, 13:39 and ...

Dr. Zaid concedes in volume 1 of his book that 13:39 is talking about the Quran versus previous books rather than abrogation within the Quran. The argument is very convincing given the context of the verse


The discussion is in Item 340 on pages 238-239. The author also mentions that the narration of Ibn Abbas that this verse is about abrogation within the Quran is a disconnected narration. That discussion is in footnote 414 on page 241 and in Item 345 on page 243.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2010, 08:57 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
As far as I know, the following two verses are the basis for the deposition that abrogation in the Quran did occur, 2:106 and 16:101

Dr. Zaid says the same thing in volume 1 of his book, adding 13:39 which is discussed in the previous post. He notes that 16:101 was the earliest of these verses to be revealed (2:106 was actually the last). He convincingly concludes that 16:101 is talking about verses within the Quran, which is evident not only from the wording of the verse, but from the context


He argues that "they" in 16:101 linguistically refers to those who "associate others with God" in 16:100, so these are Mecca's polytheists who wouldn't care about abrogation of previous books, so 16:101 must be talking about verses within the Quran. Also, 16:102 makes it more likely that the subject matter is entirely the Quran.

He also argues that 16:101 is evidence that abrogation actually occurred, pointing out that the conditional article used is "إذا" (which we noted in other posts) and gives numerous examples of the use of "إذا" in the Quran where the occurrence of the condition can be inferred.

However, Dr. Zaid does not acknowledge that 16:101 would only be talking about abrogated verses that were gone from the Quran, as we argued in this post. He also changes "verses" to "verses that contain a ruling" without justifying that.

The discussion is in Items 322-327 on pages 221-226.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2010, 01:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
This is a long post, but it's about a critical issue

Linguistic wrote:
One of the questions to ask, if one would accept that verses in the text of the Quran have been abrogated is:
Why would God abrogate a ruling in a verse but still keep the verse in the text?

This is the bull's eye in the thesis of this project. The scholars have done two things to get us there:

1. They allowed the object of abrogation to be a ruling rather than a verse, in spite of the fact that the two statements in the Quran that are the basis for the abrogation doctrine, which are 2:106 and 16:101, explicitly talk about a verse as the object of abrogation (and substitution, and being forgotten).

2. They built on that by classifying the types of abrogation as
  • Abrogating a verse together with its ruling.
  • Abrogating a verse but keeping its ruling.
  • Abrogating a ruling in a verse, but otherwise keeping the verse.
The first type would be the only type there is, if the idea of abrogating a ruling wasn't introduced. The second type is controversial and doesn't concern us in this project anyway. The third type is the real problem, since the verses are still in the text of the Quran but supposedly not 'applicable' any more.

Therefore, when I read this book (volume 1, where the foundations are discussed), I paid special attention to where "abrogate the ruling and keep the verse" came from. Let me note that there was no single mention of why rulings were included with verses as objects of abrogation in the first place. It is taken for granted in the discussion, without any foundation from 2:106 or 16:101. My guess is that it came form 'abrogating' rules in the Sunna, which is not based on Quranic verses but on the Sunna itself, and it was just extrapolated to the Quran without comment. The author quotes (in item 320 on pages 219-220) the exegesis of Al-Tubary stating as a fact that abrogation is about rulings, but that is in the context of excluding statements of fact from abrogation rather than contrasting rulings to verses. Now, let's move to the main issue which is the idea of abrogating a ruling but keeping the verse. It was discussed in 4 occasions in the book:

Item 71 on page 61: Just a casual mention after a fairly elaborate discussion of other issues, saying "But what is known of abrogation in the Quran is annulling the ruling while keeping the script, and that's the way it is in the Sunna." The author cites a reference in a footnote on that page.

Item 320 on page 220: The author quotes the exegesis of Al-Tubary as citing narrations of Ibn Abbas and narrations of the companions of Abdullah Ibn-Massoud, which interpret abrogating a verse as maintaining its writing and changing its ruling. In footnote 373 on the same page, the author supports the authenticity of the narrations of the companions of Ibn-Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود), but refutes the authenticity of the narrations of Ibn-Abbas as disconnected (مقطوع).

Item 347 on page 244: After spending pages on defending that the object of abrogation is a verse in the Quran (as opposed to previous books), the author dedicates all of 5 lines to switch it to rulings instead of verses using this argument: "It may occur to us upon first thought that what is meant by "آية" (verse) in 2:106 is the Quranic verse, except that tying the condition to its result (ربط الشرط بجوابه) necessitates that "verse" be specialized here, so it would mean a verse that sets a partial, actionable ruling. Adjoining the abrogation with 'causing to be forgotten' necessitates - in our belief - that the abrogation affects the ruling only while the verse remains." I just want to note that this is an 800+ page book dedicated to abrogation in the Quran, and it contains significant elaboration on so many other points, but this is what it is content to say about the key issue in the entire subject.

Item 362 on page 257: The author cites the source of the idea of abrogating a ruling but keeping the verse, by directly quoting the exegesis of the companions of Ibn Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود) who interpret "ما ننسخ من آية" (if we abrogate a verse) in 2:106 as saying "we keep its script and change its ruling." The author goes on to cement the interpretation of 2:106, claiming a consensus among the early Muslims, but without saying what the consensus is about. We note that the context of his consensus claim was a long rebuttal of the other interpretation that 2:106 is talking about abrogating earlier books rather than abrogating within the Quran.

From all of this, it seems that the interpretation of 2:106 by the companions of Ibn Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود) is the original basis for the belief that there are abrogated verses in the text of the Quran.

BTW, I always thought why is 2:106 more famous than 16:101 in the abrogation doctrine (and the one that gave it its name)? Verse 16:101 is much easier to use in proving that some Quranic verses had been canceled and replaced by other verses, which is really the essence of what the "change of mind" attacks were about. It also is more pointed in defending such replacement against the attacks. I think the reason is that, since 16:101 specifically talks about substituting a verse in place of another, that leaves no room for the "abrogate the ruling but keep the verse" line of thought, and that is why 2:106 is promoted to its prominent position since it is perceived as having some slack in that direction. Just my humble opinion.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2010, 06:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Showing evidence that the Quranic text cannot logically have abrogated verses.
...

since " الباطل " (usually translated as falsehood) in 41:42 can literally mean 'something that is no longer valid', and this verse refers to the 'book' in 41:41 which means the Quranic text.

It turns out that 41:42 was used by Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahani to refute the abrogation doctrine, and IMHO it was one of the more sound arguments he made in his campaign against abrogation. Dr. Mostafa Zaid tried in volume 1 of this book to refute all of his arguments, and I feel he had much harder time in this case (items 377-378, pages 266-268) and ended up with more rambling than reasoning, with all due respect.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2010, 22:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
From all of this, it seems that the interpretation of 2:106 by the companions of Ibn Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود) is the original basis for the belief that there are abrogated verses in the text of the Quran.

Of the companions of Ibn Masood, I have been able to learn the following names,

حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن منصور عن إبراهيم قال: كان أصحاب عبد الله الذين يفتون ويقرءون القرآن: علقمة والأسود وعبيدة ومسروقا وعمرو بن شرحبيل والحارث بن قيس.
علقمة هو:علقمة بن قيس، والأسود هو: الأسود بن يزيد

Source: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/disp ... 10&ID=4175

Alqama ibn Qays (d. 102 A.H.),
Al-Aswad ibn Yazeed (d. 75 A.H.),
Uabayda,
Masrooq,
Amr ibn Shurahbeel,
Al-Haarith ibn Qays,
Ibraaheem An-Nakh`i (d. 95 A.H.) and
Ash-Sha`bi (d. 105 A.H.).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 07:40 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Quote:
" الباطل " (usually translated as falsehood) in 41:42 can literally mean 'something that is no longer valid', and this verse refers to the 'book' in 41:41 which means the Quranic text.
It turns out that 41:42 was used by Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahani to refute the abrogation doctrine, and IMHO it was one of the more sound arguments he made in his campaign against abrogation. Dr. Mostafa Zaid tried in volume 1 of this book to refute all of his arguments, and I feel he had much harder time in this case (items 377-378, pages 266-268) and ended up with more rambling than reasoning, with all due respect.

I looked up the linguistic meaning of the verb "بطل" which is the origin of "الباطل" that appears in 41:42,


and according to one of the dictionaries (مقاييس اللغة), it means:

الباء والطاء واللام أصلٌ واحد، وهو ذَهاب الشيء وقِلَّة مُكثه ولُبْثه

Translation: Something being gone, and lack of its staying or remaining

Can we rest our case? :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 10 Feb 2010, 16:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked up the linguistic meaning of the verb "بطل" which is the origin of "الباطل" that appears in 41:42, and according to one of the dictionaries (مقاييس اللغة), it means:

الباء والطاء واللام أصلٌ واحد، وهو ذَهاب الشيء وقِلَّة مُكثه ولُبْثه

Translation: Something being gone, and lack of its staying or remaining

Can we rest our case? :)

Yes, we might :) This is why الحق (the truth) is the counter word. It means what is always there, staying, remaining and proving itself over and over.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 07:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
A running theme in Burton's book is that the abrogation doctrine (which he refers to as the general theory of abrogation) was not introduced by scholars to resolve conflicts between verses in the Quran, but rather to resolve conflicts between exegeses of the Quran (and the Sunna) by different schools.

He gives an example of his view by citing different opinions about 8:65-66 by Al-Shafeiy and Ibn-Hazm (discussed in points 8 and 9 of this post, with Zaid adopting Al-Shaeiy's opinion). Burton says on page 28: "That Ibn Hazm did not feel the need to see this as an instance of naskh in the Kuran underlines that the conflict lies not between two verses of the Book of God, but between two exegeses of a Kuranic passage."

I would take Burton's remarks with caution. Although he tries to look objective, every now and then a snide remark slips by that shows a general adverse attitude, which diminishes his credibility.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2010, 03:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Another verse that conveys to me the gravity of the abrogation claim is


When a Muslim judge reads a verse with a ruling and dismisses the ruling out of the belief that it is no longer valid, a belief stemming from opinion rather than evidence, does he not risk being one who turns away from it? That is scary.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2010, 07:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Also 41:41-42

since " الباطل " (usually translated as falsehood) in 41:42 can literally mean 'something that is no longer valid', and this verse refers to the 'book' in 41:41 which means the Quranic text.

In replying to quoting 41:42 as evidence against abrogation, Abu-Haazim Al-Kaatib wrote,

و أما أدلة هذا القول الشاذ فمنها:
١- قوله تعالى: "لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه". وجه الاستدلال أن الله أثبت أن القرآن لا يأتيه الباطل فلو نسخ لكان قد أتاه الباطل.
وأجيب عن هذا بأن المراد بالباطل الكذب والتحريف والتبديل كما حصل في الكتب السابقة، فيوافق قوله تعالى: "إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر وإنا له لحافظون". وقيل الباطل إبليس لا يستطيع أن يزيد فيه أو ينقص. وفرق بين الباطل والإبطال. وينظر في هذا ما ذكره المفسرون في الآية. قال ابن جرير الطبري في تفسير الآية: وأولى الأقوال في ذلك عندنا بالصواب أن يقال: معناه: لا يستطيع ذو باطل بكيده تغييره بكيده وتبديل شيء من معانيه عما هو به وذلك هو الإتيان من بين يديه ولا إلحاق ما ليس منه فيه وذلك إتيانه من خلفه

_________________
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.  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 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, 22:00

All times are UTC

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