TheMostReadBook.org

Al-Jabri comments on this story on page 118 of his book, making the following points

1. Al-Dhahhak Ibn Muzahem Al-Helaly, who told of this story about Ibn Abbas, is reported to have never met Ibn Abbas, and is viewed by others as untrustworthy in all the narrations that he reported.
   
   
2. Al-Jabri points out that this is a troubled story, having been reported sometimes depicting Ibn Abbas and other times depicting Aly.
   
   
3. He points out that the custom of lecturing in mosques had not started at the time of Aly, but only started in the epoch of Bani Umayya.

Did he tell who rated him untrustworthy? I wonder why that was not mentioned by anybody else? Ad-Dhahhak died 105 A.H. long after Ibn Abbaas, who died 68 A.H., but he lived in Medina among the companions of Ibn Abbaas, such as Mujaahid and Ikrima, so he may have heard from them but failed to quote them.

According to Al-Jabri, Said Ibn Jubeir is the one who said that Al-Dhahhak never met Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Habban is the one who dismissed Al-Dhahhak's reliability wholesale. A reference is cited for the latter statement, which is "Warning of Special People from the Lies of the Narrators" (تحذير الخواص من أكاذيب القصاص) by Al-Suyuti (page 192 in the realization by Muhammad Al-Sabbagh).

BTW, Al-Jabri seems to be citing Al-Suyuti favorably on more than one occasion, which I cannot reconcile with the attack on him that I reported in an earlier post.

This statement, and the post as a whole, is the best articulation I have read of that piece of circumstantial evidence against the abrogation doctrine.

Al-Jabri offers an entirely different interpretation of 16:101 on page 164 of his book. He interprets the 'substitution' that 16:101 is talking about as reordering the verses in the Quran without eliminating any. He argues that the Prophet (PBUH) gave instructions for each verse as to where it belongs, and the substitution amounts to changing where the older verses belong upon the revelation of new verses. This interpretation has some merit, but it has no impact on the abrogation doctrine as we define it. Al-Jabri goes on to argue a similar interpretation of 2:106, much less convincingly IMHO.

Al-Jabri on 16:101


Later in the book Al-Jabri offers detailed analysis of various interpretations of 16:101, spanning pages 182-194. First, he tries to substantiate the above interpretation about the substitution being reordering of the verses, and I have to say that his arguments were extremely labored and unconvincing. He then moves to another interpretation that treats آية as sign in 16:101, and his arguments become even more labored. He also tries to refute the interpretation that the substitution removes a verse and puts another one in its place, and fails miserably IMHO.

Now, the good part. He discusses another interpretation of 16:101 that treats the first mention of آية as the Quran, and the second mention of آية as previous revelation, thus making it similar to the prevailing interpretation of 2:106. Although it is not a full-proof interpretation, I must say that this is the first time I can see a possibility that 16:101 does not in fact affirm that verses from the Quran had been gone. Some highlights:

• He argues that Chapter 16 was revealed in Mecca at a time where no previously revealed verse was claimed to be abrogated, so it makes no sense that 16:101 would be addressing the subject. Makes sense, but I am not sure about the timing of the narrations that report verses that were gone relative to the time of revelation of 16:101.
  
  
• He supports this interpretation by mentioning that some exegetes believe that it was the Jews who made the claim of 'inventor of lies' that 16:101 talks about, and that they were reacting to the verses
  
  
  
  which is an example of the Quran substituting the Torah.
  
  
• He reports objections to what the exegetes said based on the fact that 16:100 talked about polytheists not people of the book. He argues that it is possible that this still referred to the Jews based on
  
  
  
  
  He doesn't give a satisfactory rebuttal to the fact that in Mecca where 16:101 was revealed, the assault of the Jews had not started yet. Later on, he makes the isolated but interesting point that 16:100 is talking specifically about those who associate Satan with God, not about general polytheists.

In addition to discussing this interpretation and his own interpretation, Al-Jabri mentions some interesting aspects about 16:101

1. The circumstances of revelation are reported to be accusations by the unbelievers of Mecca that the Prophet (PBUH) changes his rulings and eases some requirements. Al-Jabri quotes Al-Ghazali being skeptical about this and saying that there was no body of rulings and changes prior to 16:101 as it was revealed in Mecca.
   
   
2. Al-Jabri notes that the later verse 16:103 supports that 16:101 is addressing frictions with the Jews
   
   
   
   since 16:103 addresses an accusation that implies belief in the previous revelations.
   
   
3. He quotes Al-Ghazali as arguing for the interpretation of آية as sign in 16:101, saying that the polytheists in Mecca were asking the Prophet (PBUH) for a material miracle like with previous prophets rather than the miracle of the Quran. He says that 16:101 is a response to that, saying that God chose the miracle of the Quran over material miracles.

Al-Jabri on 13:39


Al-Jabri convincingly concludes on pages 194-195 of his book that 13:39 is talking about books of revelation abrogating previous books of revelation, challenging those who claim, based on reported circumstance of revelation, that 13:39 addresses changes in juristic rulings in Islam that drew accusations from the Jews that the Prophet (PBUH) is making up the Quran.

Al-Saqqa strongly advocates this interpretation of 16:101 (and the similar interpretation of 13:39) on pages 20-21 of his book. He articulates it nicely, with a lot of background before that about previous revelations. I am now on the fence about the interpretation of 16:101, but that's an academic issue as far as the abrogation doctrine is concerned, since neither this interpretation nor the other mainstream interpretation would support the doctrine.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ghazaali, may God bless his soul, wrote in the introduction of his book نظرات في القرآن, first published in 1958 A.D., this intriguing paragraph,

Translation: And the Quran itself is a book that can never be isolated from life. Was it sent down except to condemn or uphold some of life's ideas? Or to remove or affirm some of its conditions?

He used the same words God uses in 13:39, implying, I gather, that this is his interpretation of the verse. It sure is a valid one. The Quran does confirm some of the practices that were around before it was revealed, but it also and firmly condemned and abolished many other practices. That does not constitute abrogation, rather a correction of what was corrupted and approval of what was not.

I humbly disagree. My reason is that the word بدٌل is used in the Quran and in Arabic grammar to mean substitution or apposition, e.g.,

I don't see the semantic of placing a verse out of order. If that were a valid semantic, then it applies to the entire Quran, because it has been arranged in an order that has nothing to do with the order of revelation. That was done by command from the Prophet (PBUH) to the scribes.

If the intended meaning was placing a verse out of order, the words would have been وإذا بدلنا مكان آية, but the words used are وإذا بدلنا آية مكان آية, so it is the verse that has been replaced, not its place.