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  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 04:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Professor Muhammad Ali Mustafa refutes this case on the basis of contingency. He writes,

وجه الإحكام أن الحكم الجديد معلل بالضعف {وعلم أن فيكم ضعفاً} فلا يسقط الحكم السابق بالكلية بل يعود بذهاب الضعف وعودة القوة

Translation: The view of no abrogation is based on the fact that the new command is contingent upon weakness, thus the old command does not become invalid, but rather becomes valid as soon as weakness goes away and strength comes back.
Interesting angle.

Interesting indeed. The statement "Now A knew B" can imply one of two scenarios:

1. B has always been true, but A has just known about it.
2. B has just become true, and A knows about it.

In our case, scenario 1 is impossible since God knows everything all the time, so that leaves scenario 2 as the only possibility. This conclusion supports the interpretation that the command is contingent upon weakness, since weakness is a new condition.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 07 May 2010, 03:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Ghazali's view

This abrogation claim is one of the 'big 3' that Al-Ghazali addressed in his book (pages 209-210). He singled them out as the cases where the wording of the verse may be construed as declaring that abrogation has taken place. In this case "Now God has lightened [the burden] on you" is such wording.

Al-Ghazali is against this abrogation claim. He starts by saying that the verses are statements of fact (I disagree). He contracts this with a previous verse in the same chapter,


which he interprets as a command to stay put regardless of the relative size of the adversary (I agree with that part). He elaborates that the expression in 8:65 about ten-fold came as a statement of fact not a command with a view to motivating the Muslims and mobilizing them.

He then reaffirms the opinion that the lightening of the burden in 8:66 is conditional on weakness (same opinion as that of Muhammad Ali Mustafa above), and argues the same way I argued in the last post saying that "Now ... He knew that there is weakness in you" refers to the weakness, not the knowledge, happening now. He continues with an argument about the description of "patient" used in the verses that I did not quite understand.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 07 May 2010, 16:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 311-315, supports this abrogation claim, but at times seems not so sure. He quotes a lot of scholars opinions, summarized as follows,
  • There are no words in 8:66 that forbid Muslims from fighting an army ten times theirs. Conclusion is if they can they should but if they can't they don't have to.
  • Verse 8:65 is a resolution (عزيمة) and 8:66 is a license (رخصة). A license does not abrogate a resolution. For example, the license to use dust for ablution (تيمم) does not abrogate the mandate to use water (وضوء) for ablution when water is available.
  • The two verses are about the situation before a fight starts (you said that, Pragmatic). But when the fight gets on, there is no allowance for withdrawal except for the conditions stated in these verses,

    And

    This opinion was made by Ibn Abbaas in a narration made by Muhammad ibn Is-haaq, Ali ibn Abi-Talha, Al-`Iraaqi, Ibn Abi-Jaathim, Mujaahid, `Ataa', `Ikrima, Al-Hasan, Zayd ibn Aslam, `Ataa' Al-Khuraasaani and Ad-Dhahhaak among others.
  • Al-Fakhr Ar-Raazi makes the observation I made, which is that the point is not the number but the steadfastness. Yet, he concluded that this a case of abrogation!
  • Ibn Umar (RA) said that the two verses were revealed about them (the Sahaaba), implying, it appears, that it doesn't apply to subsequent generations of Muslims.

Once again, we see a case of naskh, but not abrogation. The command in 8:65 was not lifted by the command in 8:66; it was explained. That is, when Muslims took the numbers literally, they overburdened themselves, when in fact what was required of them was to ignore the numbers and focus on being steadfast in battle. Both verses assure them of victory regardless of their numbers if they are faithful and steadfast.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 11 May 2010, 21:55 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 311-315, supports this abrogation claim, but at times seems not so sure. He quotes a lot of scholars opinions, summarized as follows,
...
  • Verse 8:65 is a resolution (عزيمة) and 8:66 is a license (رخصة). A license does not abrogate a resolution. For example, the license to use dust for ablution (تيمم) does not abrogate the mandate to use water (وضوء) for ablution when water is available.

On page 254 of his book, Muhammad Al-Khodari asserts exactly the same thing with the same terminology and example. Maybe that's the scholar whom Al-Areedh quotes in this case.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 21 May 2010, 06:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
On page 134 of his book, Nada argues that the use of the word خفف (lightened) in 8:66 does not necessarily imply that a heavier burden existed before. He was quoting an opinion of Al-Fakhr Al-Razi who used as evidence the verse


whose context does not imply a specific move from a heavier burden to a lighter burden. I can see the point, but I think the case for it is fairly weak.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 21 May 2010, 17:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On page 134 of his book, Nada argues that the use of the word خفف (lightened) in 8:66 does not necessarily imply that a heavier burden existed before. He was quoting an opinion of Al-Fakhr Al-Razi who used as evidence verse 4:28 whose context does not imply a specific move from a heavier burden to a lighter burden. I can see the point, but I think the case for it is fairly weak.

I see it in another way. What 4:28 says is that God's intention is always to make things light on believers. Therefore, when He commands something that seems particularly hard, it is not His intention that it lasts; it's only to test their compliance. Much like the order to Abraham (PBUH) to slaughter His only son. Once compliance is demonstrated, God reveals the intended command. This is a different concept from abrogation, but some understandably don't see the difference.

This is why 8:66 has the sentence "He knew that within you is weakness." That is a fact that existed when the previous verse, 8:65, was revealed with the harder command.

This argument also works to explain why the verse with the harder command was kept in the text of the Quran. It isn't because God would leave abrogated verses around; it's because He wants us to understand that our acceptance and endurance of hardship will be followed by ease.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 22 May 2010, 04:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
On pages 135-136 of his book, Nada discusses opinions of scholars who are against this abrogation claim. Two views stand out

  • One view is that the instructions in 8:65-66 are not for the Muslims, but for the Muslim leadership. They provide guidelines for when to go into battle. It sets the upper limit as 10-to-1 beyond which the leader should not go into battle. It also asks the leader to pep-talk the army under such adverse conditions. It then sets the lower limit in the case of weakness as 2-to-1 under which the leader must go to battle.

  • Another view is that 8:65 is not command for the Muslims, whereas 8:66 is. An example is given of a teacher telling the student that he can study 100 pages because he is so smart, then commands him to study 20 pages only because he is tired. The wording of the two verses supports this since 8:65 is a command to the Prophet (PBUH) not to the Muslims and it is a command to persuade the believers with a justification for the extreme ratio (the enemy doesn't comprehend), while 8:66 is a direct command to the Muslims.

One final remark. Discussing 8:65-66 as an abrogation claim in an academic setting is quite different from having the verses apply to you when you are about to go fight and die. IMHO, the combination of persuasion and pep talk for extreme adversity and a lighter guideline for what is the minimum required is needed for the decision making and the morale in this grave situation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 18:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Ghaali refutes this case in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 152-158. He makes this powerful argument (my brief translation):

Husaam Al-Ghaali wrote:
Muslims, after the revelation of these verses, fought armies more than ten times their number in many places. In the battle of Mu`ta there were only three thousand Muslims against two hundred thousand enemy soldiers. In the battle of Al-Yarmook, it was thirty thousand aganist two hundred thousand. Abu-Bakr then sent them Khaalid ibn Al-Waleed with a reinforcement of nine thousand. One Muslim soldier said, "How many Romans there are and how few Muslims!" Khaalid quickly replied, "How few Romans there are and how many Muslims! Soldiers increase with support and reduce with defeatism, not with numbers."

That is a great argument. If Abu-Bakr, may God have been pleased with him, thought that 8:65 was abrogated, he would not have sent an army to face an enemy more than six times their number, let alone two times. Even after reinforcement, the ratio was still much larger than two times.

I'd humbly add that the flip side was also mentioned by God. He gave the example of the battle of Hunayn,

There Muslims were more than their enemy but they lost. Thus, it is clear from this verse, from 8:15, 8:45, 8:64, 8:65 and 8:66 that God wants to impress upon the believers that numbers are not the issue at all, whether big or small. Why has God repeated this teaching so many times? Because people tend to think that numbers are the most important factor in battle. God assures those who believe in Him that numbers are not what matters in battle, endurance and faith are.

Al-Ghaali sees it the same way and adds a hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) saying that the supplication of the righteous and the true is more forceful against the enemy than the weapons of the fighters, and that sins are more decimating of the ranks of Muslims than their enemy's weapons. I could not find this hadeeth. I appreciate it if any reader can reference it for me.

If I recall correctly what I've read about the battles of Badr and Uhud, the battle of Badr had a three-to-one advantage for the polytheists. It is the consensus of scholars that 8:65 was about that battle. When the polytheists were defeated in Badr, they vowed to retaliate with a much bigger army the next time, and they did the following year at the battle of Uhud. According to Wikipedia, the numbers were 704 Muslims against 3200 polytheists, a ratio of almost 1:5. The Prophet (PBUH) did not try to negotiate or maneuver in any way, he stood fast and ordered his followers to do likewise and defend Medina. If he thought 8:66 abrogated 8:65, he would not have done so. He made a treaty a few years later, at Al-Hudaybiya, so he was not averse to treaties.

Al-Ghaali then details what Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani said refuting this claim. Ar-Raazi agrees with him. Al-Asfahaani said (my translation):

Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani wrote:
Suppose we interpret this declarative statement (in 8:55) as a command, the command is contingent upon the twenty being able to endure fighting two hundred. The fact that God says in 8:66, "He knew that in you is weakness" proves that the contingency is not there and thus 8:65 does not apply to the situation spoken about in 8:66.

If it is said that the words "Now God has eased upon you" imply that there was a mandate before and it is now eased, we reply that the Arabs used the term easing in the sense of license, not necessarily to imply a reduction of load. Consider,

There, God is giving license to marry bond maidens for those who cannot afford to marry free women. Is that abrogation? No, it's a license at large.

Al-Ghaali finds that a good argument. He adds that 8:66 ends with the words, "And God is with the enduring", thus confirming, rather than abrogating, what He has already said in 8:65.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 18:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In the battle of Al-Yarmook, it was thirty thousand aganist two hundred thousand. Abu-Bakr then sent them Khaalid ibn Al-Waleed with a reinforcement of nine thousand.
...
That is a great argument. If Abu-Bakr, may God have been pleased with him, thought that 8:65 was abrogated, he would not have sent an army to face an enemy more than six times their number, let alone two times. Even after reinforcement, the ratio was still much larger than two times.

This is decisive evidence. We need to independently verify the numbers. It will put this important abrogation claim to rest.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 19:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This is decisive evidence. We need to independently verify the numbers. It will put this important abrogation claim to rest.

This is the Wikipedia entry for the battle of Al-Yarmook,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk.
Additional confirmation would be nice.

_________________
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  Next


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, 13:36

All times are UTC

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