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.