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: 22 Jun 2010, 19:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
This is the Wikipedia entry for the battle of Al-Yarmook,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk.
Additional confirmation would be nice.

According to the article, here are the estimates of the numbers.

The Romans:
80,000–100,000 (modern estimates)
100,000–400,000 (primary sources)

The Muslims:
24,000–40,000

This makes the smallest ratio estimate exactly 2-to-1 (the biggest being more than 10-to-1). For the purpose of this abrogation claim, we can focus on estimates based in the old Muslim sources rather than the revised Western numbers, simply because what matters is the ratio as Abu-Bakr perceived it, regardless of what it turned out to be.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 08:45 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

You drew my attention to this issue in your post in the other thread, Linguistic. I noticed that "Now" in 8:66 does not necessarily mean "From now on" which is the pro-abrogation interpretation. "Now" can mean "For now" which fits the interpretation that the license in 8:66 is tied to the condition of weakness that existed at the time of revelation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 27 Jun 2010, 22:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
A third word is صابرون which means steadfast. This is to explain why the outnumbering is not an issue.

One question that ought to jump to the reader's mind when he or she reads the words إن يكن منكم عشرون صابرون (if there is twenty of you steadfast), is: What if there isn't? Certainly 8:65 does not answer that question. So, is the question answered elsewhere? I say yes, in 8:66. The way I see it is that 8:66 reinforces the contingency of 8:65, namely, steadfastness, but associates more troops with it. Why? In order to hammer the point which, as I read it, is:
"Fighters for the cause of God, with faith and steadfastness will prevail despite their numbers."

That point is made by 8:65-66 this way,

  1. If there are twenty very steadfast troops of the believers fighting in the way of God, He will cause them to prevail over two hundred of their enemy.
  2. If there are a hundred steadfast troops of the believers fighting in the way of God, He will cause them to prevail over two hundred of their enemy.
  3. Otherwise, without steadfastness, imbalance of troop numbers may not be aided by God!

This is backed up earlier in the Quran a number of times, for instance,

And


Consider this parable. A manager says to his employees, "If ten of you stay all night working, we can finish the project by tomorrow's deadline. I know, however, that this is not so, because I know some of you have to leave. Thus I'd like fifty of you to stay till midnight. We will then finish the project."

Such statement teaches the employees what it takes to finish a project that is running late.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2010, 05:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 87-88, rejects this abrogation claim on the basis that 8:65 is contingent on strength and 8:66 is contingent on weakness. He sees both as mandates on Muslim fighters.

While 8:66 clearly defines its contingency, 8:65 doesn't. But the contingency of 8:65 can be surmised from the contingency of 8:66 by contrast.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 09:46 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, pages 87-88, rejects this abrogation claim on the basis that 8:65 is contingent on strength and 8:66 is contingent on weakness. He sees both as mandates on Muslim fighters.

While 8:66 clearly defines its contingency, 8:65 doesn't. But the contingency of 8:65 can be surmised from the contingency of 8:66 by contrast.

I think one can approach 8:65 as the default and 8:66 as having a contingency, which is pretty much what you said here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2010, 14:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, who agrees with this claim, quotes in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 157, a narration from Ibn Abbaas where he says, "Any man running away from three has not run a away, but if he runs away from two has run away."

Ibn Salaam provides that narration in the context of proving the abrogation claim. I don't understand why that is a relevant argument, since 8:65 does not talk about what happens if Muslims run away. It's 8:15 that does that:

Perhaps that's what Ibn Abbaas had in mind. But, verse 8:15 is followed by the assertion that Muslims are no longer weak,

Therefore, they no longer have an excuse not to fight back those who attack them. Verse 8:65 assures them that if there are twenty of them with resolve that they will defeat two hundred. Thus, it provides its own contingency, resolve. Absent that, they may stand up to twice their number, per 8:66. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, both verses quote those ratios as an example, not literally, evidenced by the phrase إن يكن which means "If there may be", i.e., "let's say".

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2010, 14:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Another word or phrase is إن يكن which means "if there may be" which means the 10-to-1 ratio is just an example to illustrate the point that regardless of how overwhelming in number the enemy is, Muslims must not lose courage.

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 243-249, quotes Ash-Shawkaani from his book فتح القدير, volume 2, page 324, agreeing with my "example" argument. He also said that the reality bears against what 8:65 says since it has happened that Muslims were defeated by enemies that were equal to them in number or even smaller. Ash-Shawakaani explains that by saying that 8:65 is a statement of fact that is contingent upon steadfastness.

This was also Al-Asfahaani's main argument in refuting this claim and Ar-Raazi concurs. `Ataaya adds that a contingent command cannot be a mandate since its contingency may never happen. I don't see the logic here. A contingent command, be it a mandate or a recommendation, is applicable only when its contingency is present. When it is, a mandating command becomes mandatory.

I fully agree with Ash-Shawkaani and add that 8:66 is also contingent on steadfastness, albeit a weaker model of it, for the same factual reason.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2010, 14:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 243-249, quotes another narration from Ibn Abbaas, quoted by At-Tabari from his exegesis, volume 6, page 57, that clearly states that the command in 8:65 is not a mandate but a persuasion. His argument was that if it were a mandate, there would have been a punishment stated for violating it and there wasn't.

While I agree that the commands in 8:65-66 are not mandates but rather persuasion arguments, I disagree that no punishment was stated. I see the flip side of the command in

Which clearly forbids Muslims from retreating in the face of the enemy unless it's a tactical retreat.

`Ataaya adds that it is incredulous to command something you know cannot be done. Certainly God would not do that after telling us that He does not obligate a soul but to what is within its capacity (2:286).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010, 07:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Verse 8:65 assures them that if there are twenty of them with resolve that they will defeat two hundred. Thus, it provides its own contingency, resolve. Absent that, they may stand up to twice their number, per 8:66.

I think the contingency is the weakness that allows the lower ratio per 8:66, since resolve is mentioned in both verses.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010, 15:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Verse 8:65 assures them that if there are twenty of them with resolve that they will defeat two hundred. Thus, it provides its own contingency, resolve. Absent that, they may stand up to twice their number, per 8:66.

I think the contingency is the weakness that allows the lower ratio per 8:66, since resolve is mentioned in both verses.

Weakness is indeed the contingency for the lower ratio in 8:66, but resolve is the contingency in both verses that makes the imbalance of ratios work despite the natural law, which was Ash-Shawkaani's point I mentioned in this post above.

_________________
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 42 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, 19:05

All times are UTC

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