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.  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 05:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I agree that this is the definition used by the early Muslims in their religious statements. I see it as an adaptation of a word to mean something that they had in mind, rather than the legitimate linguistic meaning of the word. Certainly not the meaning that was there before 2:106 was revealed, which is the only thing that would have a bearing on the meaning of the word in 2:106.

I respectfully disagree that the word only meant annulment before 2:106 was revealed. The Arabic dictionaries have stated many other meanings, for instance,

نسخ (لسان العرب)

نسخ الشيءَ ينسَخُه نَسْخاً وانتسَخَه واستنسَخَه: اكتتبه عن معارضه. التهذيب: النَّسْخ اكتتابك كتاباً عن كتاب حرفاً بحرف، والأَصل نُسخةٌ، والمكتوب عنه نُسخة لأَنه قام مقامه، والكاتب ناسخ ومنتسخ.
والنسخ نقل الشيء من مكان إِلى مكان وهو هو؛ قال أَبو عمرو: حضرت أَبا العباس يوماً فجاء رجل معه كتاب الصلاة في سطر حرّ والسطر الآخر بياض، فقال لثعلب: إِذا حولت هذا الكتاب إِلى الجانب الآخر أَيهما كتاب الصلاة؟ فقال ثعلب: كلاهما جميعاً كتاب الصلاة، لا هذا أَولى به من هذا ولا هذا أَولى به من هذا.
والتناسخ في الفرائض والميراث: أَن تموت ورثة بعد ورثة وأَصل الميراث قائم لم يقسم.

نسخ (مقاييس اللغة)

النون والسين والخاء أصلٌ واحد، إلاّ أنّه مختلفٌ في قياسِه. قال قوم: قياسُه رفْعُ شيءٍ وإثباتُ غيرِهِ مكانَه.
وقال آخرون: قياسُه تحويلُ شيءٍ إلى شيءٍ. قالوا: النَّسْخ: نَسْخ الكِتاب.
وكلُّ شيءٍ خلَفَ شيئاً فقد انتَسخَه.
قال السجستانيّ النَّسْخ: أن تحوّل ما في الخليَّة من العَسَل والنَّحْل في أُخرى. قال: ومنه نَسْخُ الكتاب.

تناسخ (القاموس المحيط)

تناسخ الأرواح: انتقلت من أجسام إلى أخرى كما يزعم بعضهم؛

Those entries mention the following other meanings: to copy, to stand for another, to redistribute, to transfer, to come after, to reincarnate, and to redirect. What is common between all those seemingly unrelated meanings? It's new information about an old matter.

It is because of those meanings that the Jews had a point against the Quran. Their point is that new information cannot apply to God, because He knows all beforehand. They postulated that the Torah contained everything God wished to reveal and therefore subsequent scriptures must be forgeries.

The flaw in their argument is the assumption of the reason for the new information. They claimed that the only reason for new information is its unpredictability. A programmer writes version 2.0 of his program after he discovers bugs in version 1.0. That can never be the case with God. But new information can be for more reasons. For instance, a teacher may give one aspect of a subject matter to his students until they master it, then give them the other aspects afterward. When you first meet someone, you learn something about them. As you interact with them more, you learn new things about them that do not necessarily change your first impression. That is what naskh is IMHO as I delve into its linguistic meanings.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 05:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I respectfully disagree that the word only meant annulment before 2:106 was revealed.
You are correct. Annulment is one of the two distinct meanings, the other being copying/transferring.

Quote:
Those entries mention the following other meanings: to copy, to stand for another, to redistribute, to transfer, to come after, to reincarnate, and to redirect. What is common between all those seemingly unrelated meanings? It's new information about an old action.
It is not any new information. The meaning that I don't see supported by the linguistic definition, and the one where the contention in the abrogation literature is about, is partial modification. I believe this is a conventional meaning introduced by the scholars, and is not born by the linguistic meaning. Most importantly, it is not applicable to the time when 2:106 was revealed. IMHO, they introduced this conventional meaning to accommodate their view that 2:106 is talking about verses in the text of the Quran modifying each other. 2:106 is not talking about that. It is talking about the Quran abrogating previous revelations.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2010, 20:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In explaining how naskh differs from abrogation, Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 23-28, explains in fair detail a number of very important distinctions that often get bundled into abrogation but should not. Here is the gist of it:

  • The general and the specific:

    The most straightforward definition of the general (العام) is:
    اللفظ المستغرق لجميع ما يصلح له من غير حصر

    Translation: A word that engrosses all that it can apply to without limiting. The specific is what excludes some from the general.

    Specification can be immediate or delayed. Immediate specification is indicated in the Quran in five ways:
    1. By exception: For example,
    2. By adjective: for example, 4:23. The specifying adjective is "those with whom you consummated". The verse, therefore, does not apply to other women.
    3. By condition: For example,
    4. By aim: for example, 2:196 and 2:187.
    5. By apposition: For example,


      As for delayed specifiers, one example is

      which was specified by

      And


      I'd add that this latter pattern, delayed specification, has been a dominant cause for abrogation claims. It would only be right if the word naskh is understood in its comprehensive meaning, but not if it is understood only to mean abrogation.

  • The general which means a specific:

    That may sound strange, but Al-Ghaali gives for an example,

    He says that exegetes agree that the first "people" in the verse refers to Na`eem ibn Mas`ood and the second to Abu-Sufyaan. Another example he gives is

    He says the "people" means Abraham, peace be upon him.

    I respectfully disagree with the interpretations and with the concept itself. Verse 3:173 is general. It teaches a principle. The fact that its circumstance of revelation was about two people in particular does not mean it is confined to them. As for 2:199, I understand it to mean that all pilgrims should emerge from the same place. That is, they should not be doing different things at that stage in the pilgrimage. There is simply no cause to limit the interpretation.

  • The brief and the elaborated:

    Al-Ghaali says that the brief (المجمل) is the vague (المبهم). I think he is mistaken about that, as the scholars have distinguished between the two. The brief needs detailing while the vague needs explanation. The example he gives, "Establish prayer and give alms", applies to both.

  • The unlimited and the limited:

    The distinction between that and "the general and the specific" escapes me, I confess. Al-Ghaali gives an example of the unlimited the word "neck", meaning slave, in 4:92. There, the "neck" can be of a believing slave or a disbelieving slave. Contrast that with the same word used later in the same verse, but associated with the limiting adjective "believing."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 14 Jun 2010, 21:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In explaining how naskh differs from abrogation, Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 23-28, explains in fair detail a number of very important distinctions that often get bundled into abrogation but should not.

I know that we agreed to disagree, but I think that the issue is interfering with other points that we clearly agree upon, and I think we should pin things down since there is no avoiding such a fundamental issue when we move to the write-up phase. There is no question that people have used naskh to mean things other than abrogation, and that is a major reason why the abrogation doctrine came about in the first place. However, here is the point that keeps popping up, explicitly or implicitly, and that really interferes with the analysis. It is a major problem for me.

The fact that naskh has been used by early Muslims to mean things other than abrogation, something we and almost all scholars abundantly agree upon, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether naskh in 2:106 means abrogation or not. The latter question is decided by old Arabic dictionaries, and by other uses of the word naskh in the Quran. I believe that these two sources of evidence support the meaning of annulment/abrogation (or copying/transporting, but that would not be supported by the context in 2:106). How early Muslims adapted the term after the fact to capture a technical concept that they had in mind carries zero weight in what the word means in 2:106. Absolute zero. Talking about these two unrelated issues in the same breath can only result in confusion.

In the absence of explicit Quranic or linguistic evidence that directly proves that naskh in 2:106 means partial modification, I cannot in good conscience accept this possibility. Our approach in this entire project is to look for evidence not opinion, and that applies to this fundamental issue as well.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 01:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The fact that naskh has been used by early Muslims to mean things other than abrogation, something we and almost all scholars abundantly agree upon, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether naskh in 2:106 means abrogation or not. The latter question is decided by old Arabic dictionaries, and by other uses of the word naskh in the Quran. I believe that these two sources of evidence support the meaning of annulment/abrogation (or copying/transporting, but that would not be supported by the context in 2:106).

I answered your first point, about Arabic dictionaries definition of the word naskh, in this post. And I answered your second point, that 2:106's use of the word can only mean annulment given its context, in this post.

I'm sorry that we disagree, but the more books I read, pro- and anti-abrogation, the more convinced I am that the word means more than abrogation and that its use in the Quran means other than abrogation.

A good example is what Al-Areedh said in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن. He acknowledged the obvious conditional in 2:106 but turned pro-abrogation based on 16:101, which he understood proves abrogation did occur. Thus, he equated the words نسخ and بدل without proof. The fact that two different words are used here is, to me, proof that two different concepts are addressed.

As for your point about the usage of the word naskh in the Quran, we have three occurrences of it in addition to 2:106. They are:

in which the word clearly means correction. And

in which the word clearly means recording. And finally

in which the word clearly means inscribing.

So, the word, as used in the Quran, does not mean one thing. In fact, it is used for setting as many times as for unsetting. I just don't see how we can prove that its use in 2:106 only means abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 03:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
I am sorry, Linguistic. I disagree.

My biggest problem in responding to this post and to the other posts about this issue is that I believe that what I am arguing is obvious. I would drop it if there was anyway to avoid the issue. There is no way since this is as fundamental as it gets in this project. We simply cannot proceed without settling it. I started writing a long post refuting each point, then I realized that this is not productive. I'll give you an example. Here is what you said about the linguistic meaning.

Linguistic wrote:
  • نسخت الريح الأثر which means the wind nearly erased the tracks. If they meant total erasure, they would've said محت الريح الأثر
  • نسخ الشيب الشباب which means grey hair had its toll on youthfulness. If they wanted to say it ended it, they would've said أنهى الشيب الشباب
  • نسخ النحل العسل which means the bees carried honey from one cell to another, or that it duplicated it in every cell, which is more likely since that is what actually happens. If they wanted to say that they moved it to another cell, they would have said نقل النحل العسل
  • نسخت الشمس الظل which means the sun covered the shade. The shade isn't gone, it will be back when the sun moves away. If they wanted to say that the sun replaces the shade, they would've said أبدلت الشمس الظل
  • نسخت الريح الديار which means that the wind altered the appearance of the homes to the point that they are hardly recognizable, not that the homes are gone. If they wanted to say the homes are gone, they would have said ذهبت الريح بالديار

Let's take the second example. The youth is actually gone. Gray hair came when the youth was gone. I should know that one :). The two verbs شب and شاب are taken as opposites in Arabic expressions. Now, they used نسخ because it is a word available to them that carries the meaning. If another word also could have done the job, they are not obliged to use the other word. They can choose either word at their discretion, and that does not take away from the meaning of either word. They didn't use أزال either. Does the existence of أزال mean that أنهى or محى does not mean "total erasure"?

I can go on with the other examples, but it doesn't serve any purpose. The basic logic is flawed IMHO. If another word means annul, that does not mean that the first word does not mean annul. The arguments in the quoted examples are so labored, it is awkward to address them.

I also had a great-sounding theory about the origin of the word نسخ in this post. However, there is no evidence for it. I can force some evidence, but then I would be doing what we have criticized many others of doing during this project, going through labored arguments to 'prove' a notion that they have already preconceived.

I suggest, if and when we settle this, that you delete my posts and your posts that consitute this argument. They do not live up to the quality of the other posts, even the ones where we didn't agree about one item or another.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 03:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Now, they used نسخ because it is a word available to them that carries the meaning. If another word also could have done the job, they are not obliged to use the other word. They can choose either word at their discretion, and that does not take away from the meaning of the first word. They didn't use أزال either. Does the existence of أزال mean that أنهى or محى does not mean "total erasure"?

I can go on with the other examples, but it doesn't serve any purpose. The basic logic is flawed IMHO. If another word means annul, that does not mean that the first word does not mean annul.

Agreed. What I should have said is that these examples and my interpretations of them show that alternative meanings are possible. Thus, limiting the word to annulment is unjustified. As the scholars have said: لايجوز تخصيص العام أو تقييد المطلق إلا بقرينة (It is not allowed to specify the general or limit the unlimited without evidence). That is what I'm talking about; I don't see evidence to limit the word نسخ in 2:106 to abrogation, or the word آية to verse. They are valid and possible meanings, but not the only ones. This is actually along the same lines that you wrote about before,
Pragmatic wrote:
It seems that the argument against abrogated verses has four components.

1. Explaining why 2:106 and other verses that are used to substantiate the doctrine of abrogation can be reasonably interpreted otherwise.
...


BTW, I do like your theory about why the word naskh is an antagonym.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2010, 04:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Zalmi has a strange glitch in the very opening paragraph in his book on page 17. As he describes the linguistic meanings of the word نسخ, he mentions 'substitution' among them. The evidence he provides for this linguistic meaning is 16:101, which obviously does not have the word نسخ in it.

He was expressly talking about what the word means for Arabs in this discussion, and he talks later about what the word means for early Muslims and those who came after them.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2010, 04:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Zalmi makes a good point on page 21 of his book. He points out that all technical definitions of نسخ by the pro-abrogation scholars boil down to the cancellation of a previous ruling through later juristic evidence, but that such definition cannot be applied to the other types of نسخ that they entertained like "abrogation of recitation and ruling" and "abrogation of recitation but not the ruling."

He goes on to suggest that the applicable definition given how they used نسخ would be cancellation of a revelation through a later revelation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 02:30 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Zalmi highlights a main point of contrast between abrogation and specialization in item 13 on page 71 of his book. He points out that specialization does not cancel out the original ruling, except for the cases handled by the exception, while abrogation cancels out the original ruling in its entirety. Simple as this may sound, it is one of the most overlooked aspects in many claims of abrogation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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, 23:25

All times are UTC

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