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





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 22:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He brings up two more verses that have been argued as proof of abrogation,


...

On page 32 of this book, the author quotes Al-Qasemi discussing the context of 13:39. Al-Qasemi notes the previous verse


and mentions that people were asking the Prophet (PBUH) for material miracles like those of previous prophets, and that 13:38-39 are talking about the old miracles being gone and the new miracle of the Quran staying.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2010, 04:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Pages 41-43 of this book discuss an important narration of Omar that is often taken as evidence by pro-abrogation folks. According to the author, it is rated authentic by Al-Bukhari, and the chain leads to Ibn Abbas attributing the text directly to Omar, may God be pleased with them. I have seen variations of this narration before, but let me translate this version because of its credentials.

Quote:
Our foremost reciter is Ubayy and our foremost judge is Aly. We indeed leave out from the words of Ubayy as he says he wouldn't leave out a thing that he heard from the Prophet (PBUH), and God has said "Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten"

The author goes into detail about how this could mean something other than what it is taken as evidence of, including raising doubts about whether the last sentence was uttered by Omar or by one of the narrators as a commentary.

Authenticity aside, this narration provides no evidence for the abrogation doctrine, as the subject matter is 'leaving out' rather than annulling, so it would be talking about abrogation of recitation rather than abrogation of ruling and keeping the recitation, the latter being the exclusive subject of the abrogation doctrine as we defined it.

As much as I have doubts about the other types of abrogation, I have to say that those claiming abrogation/forgetting of recitation and ruling stand on a relatively firmer ground than other pro-abrogation claimants.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2010, 06:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
On page 52 of this book, the author discusses how attacks by non-Muslims on abrogation and how discussions of abrogation in previous books have inappropriately affected Muslim scholars' discussion of abrogation in the Quran. The main points the author makes are that it is totally irrelevant to the abrogation doctrine whether or not abrogation had occurred in previous books, and that the scholars' reaction to non-Muslim attacks on abrogation by supporting the abrogation doctrine is misguided.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010, 19:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 388, quotes Dr. Umar Ubayd Hasana from his book كيف نتعامل مع القرآن, page 80, saying that some scholars claimed abrogation of verses which in their opinion have served their purpose, based on reported circumstances of revelation. Dr. Hasana rejects this reasoning saying that it implies that the same problem cannot happen again, but of course it can. He criticizes such scholars of thinking as if the Quran was sent only to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula in the Seventh Century! It was of course sent to all mankind for all ages.

`Ataaya adds that narrations about the circumstances of revelation are not always authentic. He chose the second part of the title of his book طلاقة النص (Openness of text), to emphasize that the Quran's generalities are intended to provide a permanent framework. Specific and contingent rulings within that framework do not abrogate it, but work within it for the specific conditions and the contingencies that accompany them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 21 Sep 2010, 18:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Dr. Zayd spends many pages of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, pages 30-47, discussing what the Jews said about abrogation. What is the point?

The point is that the Jews made what sounds like a strong argument that abrogation by God is impossible. By making such argument, they concluded that the Quran cannot be the truth if it abrogates the Torah and the Sharia cannot be valid if it abrogates the Mosaic law.

That charge must have been so powerful, because all scholars of old responded to it in an attempt to refute it. A major reason for claiming abrogation, IMHO, is therefore a misguided attempt to stand up for the Quran and the Sharia. What escaped all those scholars, sadly, is that the charge of the Jews is true, but that it does not prove their conclusion!

How come? Because the Quran abrogated the human additions and changes to the Torah, not the original Torah. It restored the Torah. The Sharia abrogated man-made laws made part of the Mosaic law but not sanctioned by God. The Sharia restored the Mosaic law. This is what naskh is: correction of what was wrongly done and confirmation of what correctly remained.

What was the argument of the Jews? One group of them, called the Samsonites, have argued that abrogation is logically impossible and never happened. They said it's logically impossible because it implies one of two things: Either God realized a wisdom when He issued the later command, or He had no wisdom behind the later command, both are obviously impossible.

Dr. Zayd correctly spots that false dilemma and says that the Samsonites left out a third possibility: that the wisdom behind the later command is not revealed to us. While that refutes the false dilemma, and thus disproves the premise, it is untestable. In other words, the discussion is useless, because it becomes guesswork.

Dr. Zayd then follows with examples from the Old Testament that demonstrate that abrogation did happen. That too is useless discussion, because the Old Testament is not the Torah! In fact, he uses that fact much later (pages 43-47) in refuting another argument offered by the Jesuit group of Jews who approved the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH) but said that they were meant for the Arabs only, not for the Jews and that Moses has said that the Torah and the Mosaic law are permanent and eternal.

Finally, Dr. Zayd points out that change is the order of the day; we get sick and recover, people get rich and then poor, etc. Nobody has ever claimed that God's knowledge has changed and that's why these circumstances keep changing. Dr. Zayd offers that as supporting argument for abrogation! What is the aspect of analogy here (وجه القياس)? Changing circumstances do not equate to changing commands from God to people. Changing circumstances follow the law of God, while abrogation means changing the law of God!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2010, 16:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The story of هلكت وأهلكت

The story involving this Arabic sentence (which means "you are doomed and you doomed others")

Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 145-153, confirms the weakness of authenticity of all narrations of that story and adds an excellent point: The narration is attributed to the Sahaaba, who, by admission of the pro-abrogation scholars, all understood the wide range of meanings of the word naskh. Thus, when they asked, "Do you know the Naasikh and the Mansookh?" They meant, "Do you know what has specified the generalities, limited the unlimited, detailed the brief, elaborated the vague and identified exceptions?"

Indeed! Whether the story refers to a story teller or to a judge, neither should be talking to people about matters of the religion without such knowledge. Unfortunately, we see this "selective evidence" often in the religious opinions of some scholars. A fatwa is flawed if it ignored evidence against it by conveniently not mentioning that evidence.

Taahir quotes Dr. Zayd wondering why pro-abrogation scholars use as their strongest argument the sayings of the Sahaaba about naskh when these same scholars have redefined naskh differently from the Sahaaba! Just like one should not quote words out of context, one should not quote words out of intent.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 16 Oct 2010, 05:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
In his book "التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد" by Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Ibn Hamza Ibn Abu-Alnajm Alsa`di Alyamani (العلامة عبد الله بن حمزة بن أبي النجم الصعدي اليماني), the author mentions on page 45 that abrogation of the ruling but not the recitation is the unanimous opinion of "أهل البيت" and goes on to argue that their unanimous opinion is proof. No mention of who are they specifically, nor any evidence that they were unanimous about this opinion.

BTW, this book has the same major problem that I have with Taher's book, which is giving a prophetic title "عليه السلام" to some regular persons.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 23:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The story of هلكت وأهلكت

According to this post in another forum, the credentials of this story are:

في مصنف ابن أبي شيبة (8 / 558) (رقم 26716):
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، عَن سُفْيَانَ ، عَنْ أَبِي حَصِينٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ ، أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَأَى رَجُلاً يَقُصُّ ، فقَالَ : عَلِمْت النَّاسِخَ وَالْمَنْسُوخَ ؟ قَالَ : لاَ قَالَ : هَلَكْت وَأَهْلَكْت

Translation:
Reported by Ibn Abi-Shayba in his classification book, volume 8, page 558, narration number 26716, narrated Yahya ibn Sa`eed, from Sufyaan, from Abu-Ħaşeen, from Abu-AbdirRahmaan, that Ali saw a man telling stories. He said to him, "You know the abrogator and the abrogated?" He said, "No." He said, "You have perished and caused others to perish."

Even if we can know for certain which Sufyaan, Abu-Ħaşeen, and Abu-AbdirRahmaan the narration refers to, the fact that the attribution chain of this story can only be found in this obscure book is testimony to how weak it is.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2011, 20:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
At the end of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 145-146, Ibn Salaama says that he extracted his book out of over seventy books of exegesis and he highlighted two of them: the exegesis of Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan and the exegesis of Yahya ibn Salaam.

Are these the best sources he could find? The exegesis of Muqaatil, in particular, was discredited by many scholars.

Then he says that he relied mostly on narrations to him involving these folks: Muhammad ibn Saa'ib Al-Kalbi, Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan, Ad-Dhahhaak, Mujaahid ibn Habeeb (not ibn Jabr), Ikrima ibn Aamir, and Muhammad ibn Sa`eed Al-`Awfi.

Did he not know that Al-Kalbi, Ad-Dhahhaak and Al-`Awfi have all been dismissed by scholars and that Ikrima was also criticized by many scholars. Can narrations by such people annul verses of the Quran?

Perhaps he didn't know they were unreliable sources; he was blind. But he lived after the Hadeeth was authenticated, so he should have known more about whom to trust and whom not. And if he didn't, should he have dictated a book about such an important subject without first checking his sources?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2011, 01:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Perhaps he didn't know they were unreliable sources

The chances are he was a priori sold on the concept of the abrogation doctrine and then actively sought the "evidence" that supported his view. Not a good scholarly approach (to say the least), but not that uncommon either.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 05:01

All times are UTC

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