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.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 15 May 2013, 16:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
But, Dr. Al-Qattaan agrees with this claim. Even though the reason for 8:65 is given in it, namely steadfastness/endurance, and the reason for 8:66 is also given in it, namely weakness.

There are four combinations that can result from having two contingencies, so let's examine them:

  1. The Muslim army is strong and the soldiers are steadfast. In this case, the assurance of 8:65 applies. That is, a Muslim army should be confident that it can, in this situation, beat an enemy army ten times their number. I call this the 10-to-1 assurance. It is an assurance, rather than a command, since no command was given in 8:65 other than urging believers to fight their attackers.

  2. The Muslim army is strong but the soldiers are not steadfast. This can happen, for example, when the soldiers are depending more on weapons and technology than on faith. In this case, 8:65 does not apply, because it is contingent on steadfastness. But, does 8:66 apply? I don't think so, because it is contingent on weakness, which is not the case here. Furthermore, steadfastness is also mentioned in it as a qualifier.

    Thus, the only thing I can think of that applies in this case is that neither the 10-to-1 assurance nor the 2-to-1 assurance can be given here.

  3. The Muslim army has weakness, but its soldiers are steadfast. This is where 8:66 comes in. The 2-to-1 assurance applies.

  4. The Muslim army has weakness and the soldiers are not steadfast. In this situation, no assurance can be given and neither 8:65 nor 8:66 apply.

Thus, 8:65-66 handle only two out of four combinations of strength and steadfastness. The other two combinations are not mentioned, because the assurances in these two verses cannot be given.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 08 Jun 2014, 17:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ibn Al-`Arabi, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, pages 180-182, is vague about this claim. He starts out by quoting Ibn `Abbaas (RA) saying that 8:66 was an easing of 8:65. Ibn Al-`Arabi commented that this is "clearer than abrogation" (أبين من النسخ). That sounds to me that he did not think it was a case of abrogation and that he thought Ibn Abbaas thought likewise.

Then, he quotes `Ataa' calling it an abrogation while others he did not name said it was a declarative, and thus could not be abrogated. He did not comment on either opinion.

Finally, he discussed whether the verse is specific about the battle of Badr, or general. He favors the opinion that it is general but does not say what that means in terms of abrogation.

I therefore conclude that he was leaning toward rejecting this claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2020, 18:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In refuting this abrogation claim, Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, page 145, quotes Ibn Al-Arabi correcting the widely held belief that 8:65-66 was revealed during the battle of Badr because, he said, there were 313 Muslims and 1000 polytheists That's a one-to-three ratio.

Al-Ghaali mentions that An-Nahhaas didn't see the two verses as abrogation but rather as easing and argued that easing is not abrogation because abrogation is a total annulment of a ruling and 8:65 does not forbid fighting a ten-times enemy but makes it an option. Likewise, Ibn Al-Arabi said, is the breaking of the fast for the traveler is not called an abrogation but an easing with a license. Al-Qurtubi liked that.

Muhammad Abduh also agrees with the license argument and says that a license does not negate the commitment especially if the license is accompanied by its contingency, which in the case of 8:66 is the weakness of some fighters. Abduh summarizes his refutation by saying that 8:65 is contingent on strength and 8:66 is contingent on weakness.

Abduh also mentions the opinion of Ibn Abbaas with which the majority agrees and that is 8:65 is a recommendation while 8:66 is a mandate. I respectfully disagree as I don't see a mandating verb in either verse.

_________________
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.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 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, 11:04

All times are UTC

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