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  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 20:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalsui, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, writes this definition,

اعلم أن النسخ له اشتقاق عند أرباب اللسان وحد عند أصحاب المعاني وشرائط عند العالمين بالأحكام. أما أصله فالنسخ في اللغة عبارة عن إبطال شئ وإقامة آخر مقامه. وقال أبو حاتم الأصل في النسخ هو أن يحول العسل في خلية والنحل في أخرى ومنه نسخ الكتاب، وفي الحديث ما من نبوة إلا وتنسخها فترة.

ثم إن النسخ في اللغة موضوع بإزاء معنين أحدهما الزوال على جهة الانعدام والثاني على جهة الانتقال.
أما النسخ بمعنى الإزالة فهو أيضا على نسخ إلى بدل، نحو قولهم نسخ الشيب الشباب ونسخت الشمس الظل أي أذهبته وحلت محله، ونسخ إلى غير بدل، ورفع الحكم وإبطاله من غير أن يقيم له بدلا، يقال نسخت الريح الديار أي أبطلتها وأزالتها. وأما النسخ بمعنى النقل فهو من قولك نسخت الكتاب ما فيه وليس المراد به إعدام ما فيه، ومنه قوله تعالى "إنا كنا نستنسخ ما كنتم تعملون" 29 مكية 45 الجاثية، يريد نقله إلى الصحف أو من الصحف إلى غيرها. غير أن المعروف من النسخ في القرآن هو إبطال الحكم مع إثبات الخط وكذلك هو في السنة أو في الكتاب أن تكون الآية الناسخة والمنسوخة ثابتتين في التلاوة إلا أن المنسوخة لا يعمل بها مثل عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها كانت سنة لقوله "يتربصن بأنفسهن أربعة أشهر وعشرا" 234 مدنية 2 البقرة

He mentions a number of new points I haven't read elsewhere,
  1. Abu-Haatim said that the original usage of the word نسخ is to separate honey in one cell and bees in another.
  2. The Arabs used the expression, "the wind 'abrogated' the houses", meaning blew them away.
  3. He mentions a hadeeth that says, "No prophethood but was 'abrogated' by a period of slack."
  4. He confirms the duplication semantic in which the copied original is not erased.
  5. Finally, he mentions that the "known definition" in regards to the Quran is to annul a ruling of a verse without annulling the verse. He offers no rationale for this definition.

It is becoming clearer to me now that the word نسخ simply means an update to something, which may or may not annul it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 23:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
غير أن المعروف من النسخ في القرآن هو إبطال الحكم مع إثبات الخط وكذلك هو في السنة أو في الكتاب أن تكون الآية الناسخة والمنسوخة ثابتتين في التلاوة إلا أن المنسوخة لا يعمل به

...
Finally, he mentions that the "known definition" in regards to the Quran is to annul a ruling of a verse without annulling the verse. He offers no rationale for this definition.

He substantiates other meanings with examples of bees, sun, and wind, but does not offer any rationale for the meaning that matters, other than being a "known" definition. Zaid at least offered a 5-line (rambling) rationale.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Apr 2010, 23:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, which I finally got :), Sheikh Ali Hasan Al-Areedh settles on the following definition of naskh,
رفع الحكم الشرعي بدليل شرعي متأخر

"Lifting the juristic ruling with a later juristic evidence."

He said that definition was made by Ibn Al-Haajib. He chose that definition for his thesis, but mentioned another one when he started refuting the claim that naskh is change of mind. He said that some scholars have defined naskh as,
بيان انتهاء الحكم الشرعي الذي تقرر في أوهامنا استمراره بطريق التراخي

"Showing, after a time, that the juristic ruling which has been thought continuous, has ended."

Both definitions are incomplete, because both may be valid definitions of abrogation, but "naskh" is not limited to abrogation.

The former definition is a good one for abrogation, but the question is: what constitutes a juristic evidence? He and many others have repeatedly said that juristic evidence for something as serious as abrogation can only be unambiguous authentic text قطعي الورود والدلالة, i.e., The Quran and the authentic Hadeeth and we know that neither have stated that abrogation in the Quran occurred.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 19 Apr 2010, 22:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, which I finally got :), Sheikh Ali Hasan Al-Areedh settles on the following definition of naskh,

...

what constitutes a juristic evidence? He and many others have repeatedly said that juristic evidence for something as serious as abrogation can only be unambiguous authentic text قطعي الورود والدلالة, i.e., The Quran and the authentic Hadeeth and we know that neither have stated that abrogation in the Quran occurred.

Exactly the same definition, and argument, and inconsistency in Zaid's book.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2010, 02:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, which I finally got :), Sheikh Ali Hasan Al-Areedh settles on the following definition of naskh,
رفع الحكم الشرعي بدليل شرعي متأخر

"Lifting the juristic ruling with a later juristic evidence."

This is the most prevalent definition of abrogation among pro-abrogation scholars (chosen by Zaid in his book as well). Al-Jabri sheds light on the reason for the specific choice of words. On page 19 of his book, he mentions that حكم شرعي (juristic ruling) is meant to exclude rules that were followed, without a specific text requiring them, from being considered 'abrogated'. He also mentions that دليل شرعي (juristic evidence) rather than حكم شرعي (juristic ruling) is meant to allow abrogation without a substitute ruling.

Makes sense that these are the motives for choosing this definition, and shows how the definition is tailored to accommodate a particular, already existing view of what abrogation encompasses.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 03:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
On page 67 of his book, Al-Jabri talks briefly about the use of the term "abrogation" in a sense other than annulment. He quotes the Indian scholar Al-Tahanowy (ظفر أحمد العثماني التهانوي ), as saying:

"Abrogation for them according to their tongue was indicating what is intended not through the wording (of the abrogated) but through an outside entity (the abrogating), so abrogation for them is not confined to indicating a change, but encompasses all kinds of indications. The use of abrogation in this general sense has been abundant by the Imam of their scholars Abu-Jaafar Al-Tahawy. If you don't understand his intended meaning, you would object to what he says."

I do not recall hearing about Al-Tahanowy or Al-Tahawy before, and I am not sure why Al-Jabri has singled them out.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 04:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This is the most prevalent definition of abrogation among pro-abrogation scholars (chosen by Zaid in his book as well). Al-Jabri sheds light on the reason for the specific choice of words. On page 19 of his book, he mentions that حكم شرعي (juristic ruling) is meant to exclude rules that were followed without a specific text requiring them from being considered 'abrogated'. He also mentions that دليل شرعي (juristic evidence) rather than حكم شرعي (juristic ruling) is meant to allow abrogation without a substitute ruling.

Makes sense that these are the motives for choosing this definition, and shows how the definition is tailored to accommodate a particular, already existing view of what abrogation encompasses.

I'd humbly argue that this is an excellent definition that, if properly applied, will find no cases of abrogation in the Quran! That's because the "subsequent juristic evidence" has to be a ubiquitously reported text (متواتر) because of the gravity of the claim and the rule established by 2:106. There is not one ubiquitous narration or Quranic verse which unambiguously states that any verse in the Quran was abrogated. That's been the main argument of Dr. N. A. Tantaawi as well.

What comes close, but falls short of unambiguous abrogating words, is that there are exactly four Quranic verses which use words that may legitimately be understood as abrogating. They are:

And

And

And


In 2:187, the words أحل لكم (it has been made lawful for you), علم الله أنكم كنتم تختانون أنفسكم (God knew that you have been betraying yourselves), فتاب عليكم وعفا عنكم (So, He forgave you and pardoned you) and فالآن (Now), all give credence to the assumption that 2:187 has abrogated something. See why, IMHO, it does not, in this post.

In 8:66, the words الآن خفف الله عنكم (Now, God has eased it on you) and وعلم أن فيكم ضعفا (and He knew that in you is weakness), may be reasonably understood to have abrogated the prior requirement. Read this topic for more information.

In 58:13, the words فإذ لم تفعلوا (Since you have not), and وتاب الله عليكم (and God has forgiven you), may be understood to imply abrogation of what was previously recommended. See this topic for details.

Lastly, in 73:20, the words علم أن لن تحصوه فتاب عليكم (he knew that you could never do it, so He forgave you), may imply abrogation to many. This case is discussed in this topic.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 22:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Al-Jabri discussed on pages 102-103 of his book the use of the word نسخ by Ibn Abbas and how his narrations were used by scholars:

The scholars of Fiqh found verses that generated differing opinions and seemed to them to have contradictions, so they devised the notion of abrogating and abrogated to get out of this bind, and attributed the claim to Ibn Abbas and other followers because of their narrations, [although] they did not mean what they had in mind.
...
Ibn Abbas used the word نسخ to describe exceptions, restrictions, specializations, [and other meanings]
...
Then the later scholars built on the idea of abrogating and abrogated a lot of disciplines and rulings, and made it a basis for understanding the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 02 May 2010, 17:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
I thought I'd talk here about what I consider to be a perfect case of abrogation, clearly defined and clearly stated. Here it is,

عن بريدة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قد كنت نهيتكم عن زيارة القبور فقد أذن لمحمد في زيارة قبر أمه فزوروها فإنها تذكر الآخرة. أخرجه مسلم. قال أبو عيسى حديث بريدة حديث حسن صحيح والعمل على هذا عند أهل العلم لا يرون بزيارة القبور بأسا وهو قول ابن المبارك والشافعي وأحمد وإسحق

Translation:
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." Reported by Muslim and rated authentic by Al-Albaani and soundly authentic by Abu-`Eesa who said that the practice of the people of knowledge is that there is nothing wrong with visiting graves and that this is the opinion of Ibn Al-Mubaarak, Ash-Shaafi`i, Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) and Is_haaq (ibn Raahaweh).

Here we have the following elements of a proper abrogation case:
  1. Acknowledgment of a previous ruling,
  2. Acknowledgment that the previous ruling was a requirement, not a choice,
  3. Statement that the ruling has changed,
  4. A new ruling is stated,
  5. The reason for the new ruling is explained.

That is how an abrogation case ought to look like. The prophet, peace be upon him, would not leave his rulings unclear or conflicting with each other and causing his followers to guess how to reconcile them or which ones to follow! And certainly God would not. The job of the Prophet (PBUH) was to make the Quran clear to people. Consider

And

Would he, given this job, leave us guessing about the validity of verses of the Quran, when he was able to so clearly state the abrogation of some of his rulings? If God wanted to abrogate some of His verses, He certainly could have made that as clear as the Prophet did.

There are other examples of such a well-defined abrogation case in the Sunna, but there is nothing that comes close to this anywhere in the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 06 May 2010, 08:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
This is from a post in the Whether Abrogation thread about "abrogating the ruling but not the recitation":
Pragmatic wrote:
From all of this, it seems that the interpretation of 2:106 by the companions of Ibn Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود) is the original basis for the belief that there are abrogated verses in the text of the Quran.

It has greatly bothered me that the interpretation of 2:106 as "abrogating the ruling but not the recitation" without comment took hold through scholarly books over the centuries without being questioned or elaborated. I finally saw what could remotely constitute a basis for it, but I have no evidence that it is indeed the basis (similar to the case with your observation, Linguistic, about من in 2:106 which we don't know if the scholars considered it).

Al-Ghazali writes on page 203 of his book that the contrast between ننسخ and ننسي in 2:106 designates the difference between not completely deleting the verse and completely deleting the verse, hence the former is taken as deleting just the ruling but not the wording of the verse, while the latter is taken as completely deleting the verse.

  1. I concede that with this interpretation, the claim is not completely outrageous as it sounded without any elaboration.

  2. I maintain that the interpretation does not hold water nonetheless, since the linguistic meaning of ننسخ that implies deleting does not have shades of deleting. The word can mean things other than deleting, e.g., copying, but when it means deleting, what is deleted is gone, and that is indeed how it is used elsewhere in the Quran.


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  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 17 Sep 2019, 16:41

All times are UTC

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