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: 24 Sep 2010, 03:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
On pages 112-115 of this book, the author discusses this abrogation claim, mostly by citing scholarly explanations against it. He ends the discussion with saying (my translation)

Quote:
I am not sure about this explanation, or others that I have read. There may be more correct, more accurate explanations. The weakness or incorrectness of these explanations does not mean at all that the verse is abrogated.

I thought it was an interesting admission. For the big 3 in particular, the arguments against are many, but most are not compelling at all and therefore the discussion comes across as labored and desperate. I think we will be better off settling on one or two compelling arguments for each of these claims, and substantiating them, rather than going all over the place.

In the case of 8:65/66, I think the two most compelling arguments are

  1. 8:65 is a recommendation not a mandate for the Muslims. The evidence is the wording "persuade the believers." The recommendation remains in effect even after the mandate in 8:66.

  2. 8:66 is contingent on weakness.

The fact that the 'command' in 8:65 is expressly through the Prophet (PBUH), and that in 8:66 is directly from God is noteworthy. Not sure exactly how it fits into the abrogation argument, though.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 17:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I thought it was an interesting admission. For the big 3 in particular, the arguments against are many, but most are not compelling at all and therefore the discussion comes across as labored and desperate. I think we will be better off settling on one or two compelling arguments for each of these claims, and substantiating them, rather than going all over the place.

In the case of 8:65/66, I think the two most compelling arguments are

  1. 8:65 is a recommendation not a mandate for the Muslims. The evidence is the wording "persuade the believers." The recommendation remains in effect even after the mandate in 8:66.

  2. 8:66 is contingent on weakness.

The fact that the 'command' in 8:65 is expressly through the Prophet (PBUH), and that in 8:66 is directly from God is noteworthy. Not sure exactly how it fits into the abrogation argument, though.

I agree with him that weak arguments should be avoided, but I disagree that the two arguments above are the only strong ones. I see the strongest arguments being the following:

  1. The ratios in both 8:65 and 8:66 are mere examples, evidenced by the words إن يكن (if there may me) and also the principle set in 8:64.
  2. The contingency in both verses is steadfastness. In 8:65, it's steadfastness without any weakness and in 8:66 it's steadfastness with some weakness.
  3. The lightening of the load in 8:66 is exactly analogous to the relief in 73:20 and the pardoning in 58:13. In each of these instances, God is saying that because He knows the circumstances that prevent people from taking on the recommended amount of a command, that He allows for a lighter version of it when such circumstances are present. That's not abrogation; that's another option that may be chosen in the case of extenuating circumstances. All of those options are recommendations anyway, not mandates.

The moral of both verses (and of 8:64 too BTW) is the same: Numbers are not the issue, steadfastness is. The size of the army is not what determines its victory. When God is with an army, that army will be victorious. God is with the army which believes in Him, fights for Him only and remains steadfast in battle. That is the "ruling" in both verses and neither verse abrogates it. The history of Islamic battles demonstrates both sides of this moral. Muslims won when they were few and lost when they were plenty.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The contingency in both verses is steadfastness. In 8:65, it's steadfastness without any weakness and in 8:66 it's steadfastness with some weakness.

This is a good point. I think I now understand the role of the contingency on steadfastness. There are degrees of steadfastness, so the contingency in the two verses may be different although the same word is used. You put it nicely when you said that the ruling in 8:66 is contingent upon a weaker level of steadfastness than in 8:65.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 18:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 162, rejects this claim saying, "Running away from the enemy is forbidden regardless of their number, unless it's a tactical retreat." He is probably referring to

And that 8:65-66 simply emphasize that point. I'd add that 8:65-66 reassure Muslims, rather than command them, why they should not run away from their enemies.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 30 Sep 2010, 15:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, page 110, author Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani makes two points worth mentioning here:

  1. Verse 8:66 was revealed a long time after verse 8:65 was.

  2. Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas rejected the claim of abrogation and said that this is case of easing. He said abrogation is to cancel the first ruling, but the first ruling here was not canceled; it remains the preferred option for those who have strength.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 30 Sep 2010, 17:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Verse 8:66 was revealed a long time after verse 8:65 was.

This is important information. Does he provide any specifics?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2010, 05:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Verse 8:66 was revealed a long time after verse 8:65 was.

This is important information. Does he provide any specifics?

No, he just states it. Nearly all narrations about circumstances, timings and order of revelation, nearly all of them are weak in terms of their authenticity.

I looked it up in the exegesis of Ibn Katheer. He doesn't mention the delay, but he mentions something quite relevant to the claim! He quotes Ibn Abbaas saying, "When Muslims are half their enemy, they cannot run away from them, but when they are less than half they do not have to fight them and it's permissible for them to avoid them." Ibn Katheer says that Mujaahid, `Ataa', Ikrima, Al-Hasan, Zayd ibn Aslam, Ad-Dhahhaak and others have said likewise.

That proves that there is no abrogation here, since having a choice means the command is not annulled; it is merely an option. To put it another way, if Ibn Abbaas has said that when Muslims are less than half their enemy, they must not fight them, then he would be making an abrogation claim of 8:65, because only then is the command annulled.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 12 Oct 2010, 04:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In refuting this claim, Haani Taahir, on pages 112-115 of his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, quotes Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri from his famous book الإحكام في أصول الأحكام, volume 4, page 89, wondering how anybody could conclude from 8:66 that one Muslim soldier may run away from three. He maintains that the only thing 8:65-66 teach is the mandate to fight the enemy without fearing their numbers, depending on how steadfast Muslims are.

Taahir agrees totally and asks why, when Khaalid ibn Al-Waleed was about to lead the Muslim army to the battle of Mu'ta that his generals argued with him about the wisdom of his attack tactic, but none of them cited 8:65-66 for evidence even though the enemy was more than ten times them in number. He confirmed what we briefly discussed earlier starting with this post about the Yarmook and Mu'ta battles and added the Qaadisyya battle to the list.

He also asks, "Why, when Khaalid tactically withdrew in the Mu'ta battle, that no scholar has ever said that he was justified because of 8:65-66?"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2010, 19:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd strongly defends this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 309-315 (items 1236-1249). Among his arguments are the following:

  • Some may object to abrogation in this case, because a fighter may still stand up to ten fighters. Dr. Zayd says that what was abrogated is the mandate to stand up, not the allowance. Sounds true, except that the mandate to stand up to ten times the enemy is contingent upon strength, and the lesser mandate that followed is contingent upon weakness. With strength, the second mandate does not apply, and with weakness the first one does not.

    The funny thing is that Dr. Zayd recognizes the contingency, but says it does not apply because the ruling was abrogated!! It is hard to believe that a serious scholar would make such a circular argument, but that is what he wrote on pages 311-312 (item 1242).

  • He quotes Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri who rejects this claim with good arguments, but Dr. Zayd disagrees with them. So, the matter is difference in opinion, not proof one way or another, isn't it? And is it proper to overrule a ruling from God based on uncertain opinion, especially one that has been successfully challenged?

  • Dr. Zayd actually states that 8:66 "stated explicitly" that the command in 8:65 was eased. He then proceeds as if he made the case for abrogation!

    Not so fast! His burden was to prove that easing is tantamount to abrogation. He did not meet that burden. Easing would be abrogation if one of the following three scenarios was present:

    1. The harder command was unqualified and the easier command was also unqualified. That's not the case. The harder command is qualified by steadfastness and the easier command is qualified by steadfastness with some weakness.
    2. The harder command was qualified, but the easier command was not. That's not the case here either.
    3. The harder command was qualified and the easier command was identically qualified. That's not the case either.

Another strange thing is that he mentions the opinion of Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaani that easing does not mean alleviating the command, but rather mandating something lighter. Thus, Ibn Hajar confirms that there is no abrogation here, yet Dr. Zayd does not even comment on his opinion.

What is particularly improper is his statement on page 315 that the argument that 8:65 was not abrogated was "false interpretation, not worthy to be looked at and not eligible for discussion!" A scholar would never say that, but might say what Imam Ash-Shafii said, "My opinion is right with a possibility of being wrong, and my opponent's opinion is wrong with a possibility of being right!"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 12 May 2013, 22:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Mannaa` Al-Qattaan, in his book, مباحث في علوم القرآن, states that many scholars have confused abrogation issues. One such situation is when a reason for a command goes away. He gives the example of the order to Muslims to endure persecution when they were few and weak. Then, when they became many and strong, the permission to fight back was given.

By the same token, when the reason changes, the ruling also may. 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.

_________________
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 45 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, 12:37

All times are UTC

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