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 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2010, 20:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
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.

Jamaal `Ataaya confirms that in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 79-80, and adds that At-Tabari was the first one to interpret 2:106 in his exegesis as abrogation of ruling but not of recitation of a verse.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 18:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
In their attempts to prove that abrogation is possible, scholars past and recent have given examples from the Old or New Testaments. Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 99-110, discusses at length the arguments Az-Zurqaani used in his book مناهل العرفان to prove that abrogation is possible, based on evidence from the Old Testament.

I hate to point out the obvious, but it is futile to quote the Old or New Testament for evidence, since we Muslims know these books were edited. We have no way of knowing if the quote we're using is original revelation or man-made edition. Indeed, the advice of the Prophet, peace be upon him, has been "If the Children of Israel quote to you from their books, do not believe and do not disbelieve them!" Yet, most scholars felt completely at ease quoting from the Old Testament as if what they're quoting was undisputed fact. You see that in abundance in narrations and exegesis.

That would have been my reply to Az-Zurqaani, instead of wasting time and pages refuting suspect evidence.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 18:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
One of the examples frequently mentioned in classic and recent books to support that abrogation is not only possible but did happen, is the story of the sacrifice. In that story, Abraham tells his only son, Ishmael, peace be upon them, that he saw in a dream that he is slaughtering him. Ishmael tells him to obey God's order. Then God abrogates the command, the pro-abrogation folk claim.

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 103, mentions this as one of the arguments Az-Zurqaani used in his book مناهل العرفان to prove the abrogation doctrine. `Ataaya refutes it as a test of faith not an abrogation. In other words, the command was not intended to be carried out, therefore it cannot be abrogated.

I'd rephrase it differently. The command was contingent. The contingency is compliance out of faith. A contingent ruling cannot be abrogated unless the contingency remains. If the contingency goes away, so does the ruling. This is our validation rule #10.

In the story of the sacrifice, as well the command of fifty prayers that were reduced to five, as well the 8:66/8:65 abrogation claim, in all of these instances we have commands that are contingent on compliance. The commands were not intended; the compliance was. The subsequent relief in all those cases was not an abrogation, but rather a reward for passing the compliance test. They would have been cases of abrogation if the addressee did not comply.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 19:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

A simple question that nobody tried to answer: If Ali, may God have been pleased with him, indeed knew what was abrogated and by what, then how come he did not share that knowledge? Is there any literature where Ali's knowledge of abrogation has been documented?

Interestingly enough, the same was said about Umar, may God have been pleased with him. Abu-Ja`far Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 7, reports a narration by Huzhayfa ibn Al-Yamaan, may God have been please with him, saying, "No one should give a ruling except three: one who knows what was abrogated and what abrogated it, and that is Umar..." Which begs the question: How come Umar never taught anybody that precious knowledge? And how did he acquire that knowledge? No comment from Al-Khazraji.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2010, 17:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

According to this narrative, by Sa`eed ibn Abil-Hasan, the man's name was Abu-Yahya Al-Mu`arrif. He was judge in Koofa, Iraq, and after that chastisement from Ali, he quit judging!

And according to the other quote, the man's name is Abd-ur-Rahmaan ibn Daab, a fellow of Abu-Moosa Al-Ash`ari. His nick name was Abu-Yahya. The quote also says that Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbaas said the same thing to another man.

And according to Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, pages 19-20 of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في الكتاب والسنة, the narrator of the Ali version is actually Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi, rated trustworthy. However, he narrated it from Sufyaan ibn `Uyayna, whose memory suffered when he got old and he sometimes inserted his own words. Sufyaan narrated the story from Abu-Huʂayn, who too has inserted his own words. In this narration, the man in question is not a judge (قاض) but a story teller (قاص)! It is not possible to confuse these two words by hearing, since the two letters ص (S) and ض (Dh) are phonetically distinct. It is easy to confuse the two words upon reading the narration though. That's why it's clear to me that the narration traveled in books and was assumed authentic without verification.

Yet another version of story was narrated by Ali ibn Abdil`Azeez Al-Baghwi all the way to Ibn Abbaas who said the same sentence and the man in question was a story teller. In this narration is Salama ibn Nabeeʈ Al-Ashja`i who was at times confused, as well as Ad-Dhahhaak ibn Muzaahim, who is not highly considered.

I easily see many signs that the story is fake. Three different Sahaaba were quoted as saying the sentence, the identity of the man in question is uncertain, his occupation was confused by a dot, قاض vs. قاص, and the narration chains have weaknesses in them. To use something like that for evidence is out of desperation, not scholarship.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 11:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I easily see many signs that the story is fake. Three different Sahaaba were quoted as saying the sentence, the identity of the man in question is uncertain, his occupation was confused by a dot, قاض vs. قاص, and the narration chains have weaknesses in them. To use something like that for evidence is out of desperation, not scholarship.

Nice summary, and nicely put conclusion.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2010, 12:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
The division of the Quran into parts and sub-parts is attributed to Al-Hajjaj if I recall correctly. It struck me today that the choice to separate 2:105 from 2:106 by putting a subpart boundary between them may not be accidental.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2010, 12:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The division of the Quran into parts and sub-parts is attributed to Al-Hajjaj if I recall correctly. It struck me today that the choice to separate 2:105 from 2:106 by putting a subpart boundary between them may not be accidental.

Good observation. I'm glad the man did not offer his views on abrogation :)

I often wondered about this division as I noticed in more than one place that it is rather arbitrary. It's not a strict count of words, for instance, nor a logical break in the context.

The other puzzle is why did the scholars not consider such division a novelty (Bid`a) in religion? I guess they found it handy and harmless, or as some would say: a good novelty.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2010, 15:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
On page 204, Burton mentions that Al-Tabari, in his interpretation of 22:52 was emphatic that نسخ means أبطل (the very specific word).

I looked up Al-Tabari's exegesis, and on page 71 of Part 17, here is the relevant passage:
...
This was to substantiate the argument against the abrogation doctrine that is based on:

Did you notice that the verse says that annulment of the Quran cannot happen before or after it? Doesn't that eliminate the notion that 22:52 proves abrogation of recitation (cf. before) and that the Sunna/Consensus/Analogy cannot abrogate the Quran (after)?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 25 Aug 2010, 05:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Did you notice that the verse says that annulment of the Quran cannot happen before or after it? Doesn't that eliminate the notion that 22:52 proves abrogation of recitation (cf. before) and that the Sunna/Consensus/Analogy cannot abrogate the Quran (after)?

I did not interpret the Arabic expressions in 41:42 as meaning before/after, but there is merit to such interpretation. In this case, your point is on target and I have not seen it in any book that uses 41:42 as evidence against abrogation.

_________________
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 ... 7, 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, 05:00

All times are UTC

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