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





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2010, 04:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Therefore, I believe the proper definition of abrogation for this project is:

إبطال آية
Annulment of a verse

I also believe that because of what 2:106 and 16:101 say, the following is an equivalent definition:

إبطال آية بتنزيل آية أخرى
Annulment of a verse through the revelation of another verse

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 30, makes a very interesting observation: Whenever God uses the word إبطال (invalidation or annulment) it is only to annul an evil, The author quotes,

And magic/illusion is condemned by God in

And another example I found is

His conclusion, therefore, is that it cannot be a possible meaning of naskh mentioned in 2:106, because the word آية, whether it means sign or verse is good in both aspects of it.

So, I thought I'd check to see if the word was ever used in the Quran to annul something that's good. Indeed there is. For instance,

However, as you may have noticed, it isn't God who's doing the annulment here, it's the believers.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2010, 20:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 69, shows that linguistically one of the meanings of "naskh" is transportation, i.e., the movement of something from one place to another; it doesn't change content or identity, it only changes location.

That is supported by the common meaning of naskh, which is copying. Copying preserves the original by faithfully recording it on a new medium.

With that as a viable explanation of the word, one can see that the naskh mentioned in 2:106 could very well mean the reassignment of God's Message from the Children of Israel to the Arabs.

God, of course, is always at liberty to do that. And He has stated that this sort of action is part of His way (Sunnatullah). Some verses that come to mind confirming this understanding are,


And

And

The last quote shows that the Way of God is irreplaceable. Since people did replace it, God kept restoring it with new revelations that bring back the original Message. That's what naskh is.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2010, 17:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
One of the rare issues in which there is no dispute between Muslim scholars in regards to abrogation is that the Quran has abrogated all previous scriptures and religious laws.

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, supports that too but he takes issue with scholars views (e.g., Az-Zurqaani) that prior scriptures and laws were not meant to be lasting or universal and that's why abrogation is possible. On page 97, he considers that an insult to God's wisdom. He adds that prior scriptures contained all the values contained in the Quran.

He stops short, IMHO. He says that prior scriptures were incomplete and that the Quran is the complete scripture. He cites the famous completion verse, 5:3, and the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he gives a parable of a beautiful building that is missing a brick. People who look at the building keep admiring it but say, "If only that last brick would be laid!" The Prophet (PBUH) said, "I'm that last brick. I'm the last of prophethood."

Indeed, the Quran is complete and final, but I respectfully disagree that prior scriptures were not complete. My evidence is that God called the Torah "Complete" and "detailing everything" in,

So, the Torah was complete and could have been final. But what happened? The Jews edited it, removing, changing and adding to it. So, it was lost. They took the divine and ruined it. That is why God sent Jesus, peace be upon him, with the Gospel, to abrogate the Old Testament and restore the Torah. Then what happened? The Church did to the Gospel what the Jews did to the Torah.

That is why God removed His trust from the Children of Israel and gave it to the Arabs. The Children of Israel were not trustworthy and failed to uphold their end of the covenant, which is to believe in God and His Messengers and follow them and not treat scriptures like a commodity.

So, God knew that the Torah and the Gospel were not going to last, but it wasn't because they were incomplete, it was because people were going to mess with them. He revealed the Quran to abrogate the Old and New Testaments and restore the Torah and the Gospel. And this time, He preserved the Quran Himself. That is why the Quran is final and cannot be abrogated. In fact, the very fact that God vowed to preserve the Quran Himself and did so is testimony that the Arabs would not have done it themselves. Sure enough, no sooner than the Prophet (PBUH) died, Muslims started claiming verses of the Quran abrogated!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 11:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I thought I'd check to see if the word was ever used in the Quran to annul something that's good. Indeed there is. For instance,

However, as you may have noticed, it isn't God who's doing the annulment here, it's the believers.

Good research!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 22:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
According to this book on page 12, Al-Qurtubi explicitly noted that abrogation was used in a different sense by early Muslims. He is quoted as saying "The earlier ones call specialization abrogation as a matter of generalization and figure of speech" (my translation).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2010, 07:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On page 63 of this book, the author mentions that Al-Fakhr Al-Razi supported Al-Asfahany's use of the verse


as a refutation of the abrogation doctrine by saying (translation and emphasis mine)

Quote:
Know that Al-Asfahany has the right to use this verse to protest that there would be abrogation in the Quran, because abrogation is annulment (النسخ إبطال). If abrogation entered the Quran, then annulment (الباطل) would have come to it afterwards, contrary to this verse.

Notice that Al-Razi makes the same comment that you made, Linguistic, that "من خلفه" means afterwards.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010, 20:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I thought I'd talk here about what I consider to be a perfect case of abrogation, clearly defined and clearly stated.
...
Narrated Burayda that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said, " I had forbidden you to visit the graves. Muhammad was given permission to visit his mother's grave, so visit them for they remind of the Hereafter."

While my statement above remains technically correct, in that it states two commands one of them modifying the other, even this is not a case of abrogation, says Jamaal `Ataaya in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 396-397. His argument is that both commands were contingent. The earlier command was motivated by the un-Islamic practices the early Muslims still were accustomed to when visiting graves. They were still new at this. When their faith and understanding of Islam became established, the allowance to visit the graves was given and it too was contingent! Thus, we have two contingent commands that people thought one abrogated the other, when in fact they are mutually exclusive by virtue of their incompatible contingencies.

The earlier command was contingent on behaving Islamically when visiting the graves. This still applies; anyone who would not observe Islamic etiquette while visiting the graves must not visit them even today. He shows that this is indeed the contingency by quoting another version of the hadeeth, reported by An-Nasaa'i, in which the Prophet (PBUH) says, "Now visit them (the graves) but do not say outrageous words."

Parallel to that hadeeth is another one in which the Prophet (PBUH) says, "God has cursed female visitors who visit the graves often." Sayyid Saabiq explains this hadeeth by saying that the reason is the common practice of women at the time of wailing, cursing, tearing their clothes and wishing death upon themselves, all un-Islamic acts. Women who do not do any of that can visit graves as often as they wish and get the promised reward.

The "contingency" of the later command, which is really only a recommendation, is the reminder of death. If the visitor is not reminded of death and does not get any benefit from such reminder then his visit was a waste of time.

Thus, the contingencies are incompatible: one cannot get the benefit of the reminder of death by not observing Islamic etiquette of visiting the graves. It's that etiquette that makes the reminder effective.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010, 20:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Thus, we have two contingent commands that people thought one abrogated the other, when in fact they are mutually exclusive by virtue of their incompatible contingencies.

An even clearer example `Ataaya expounds on in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 397-398, as he discusses the hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in which he forbade saving the meat of sacrifice after the pilgrimage one year then allowed it the next year. The year he allowed it, a man asked him, "O Messenger of God, did you not forbid that three times last year?" He replied, "I only did for the benefit of the poor people who came last year and needed help."

The circumstances were different. One year there was shortage and poverty and the next year there was plenty. The two rulings were contingent, their contingencies were incompatible, and thus neither could abrogate the other.

`Ataaya says that if scholars had understood that, just about all abrogation claims would have fallen by the wayside.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010, 06:28 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
I thought I'd talk here about what I consider to be a perfect case of abrogation, clearly defined and clearly stated.
...
Narrated Burayda that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said, " I had forbidden you to visit the graves. Muhammad was given permission to visit his mother's grave, so visit them for they remind of the Hereafter."

While my statement above remains technically correct, in that it states two commands one of them modifying the other, even this is not a case of abrogation, says Jamaal `Ataaya in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 396-397.

I agree with your quoted statement, and absolutely, positively disagree with Ataya's statement.

There was no contingency. The Prophet (PBUH) did not state any condition under which one could visit the graves before. That was forbidden, period. It became allowed, and that is patently abrogation.

I feel that people who go beyond what the evidence bears are harming their core case. There are no abrogated verses in the text of the Quran. I believe, after a lot of research, that this is a statement that can be authoritatively asserted. To go beyond that and try to include hadeeth, where there would be absolutely no problem with abrogation, and also go to previous books and so on, really comes across as someone who doesn't like the concept of abrogation and goes out of his way to create labored arguments to convince himself. The core case would certainly be damaged since the credibility would be be damaged.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2010, 22:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4492
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • Muslims did not mate with their wives in Ramadhaan. Then God revealed 2:187.

    The flaw with this example, again, is that there was no order from God initially to abstain in Ramadhaan. Muslims did that on their own. 2:187 came to correct their misunderstanding.

In his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 4, Haani Taahir quotes Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam from his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن العزيز, page 56, who includes the following in the definition of naskh,
إبطال مفهوم علق بالأذهان وهو غير مراد من النص

Translation: Canceling a concept that stuck in the minds [of people] when it is was not intended by the text.

That's exactly what I argued in refuting several claims. The "abrogating" verse was revealed not to cancel what the earlier verse commanded, but to cancel what people thought it commanded. This applies to the quoted verse above, 2:187, and to many other verses thought abrogated, such as 73:1-4.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 21 Jun 2018, 19:56

All times are UTC

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