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  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 06:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Here are the two verses for reference:


is claimed to have been abrogated by


Let me make the case that there is no abrogation here (this one is easy).

The Islamic view is that God's message from Abraham all the way to Mohammad (PBUT) is the message of Islam. God explicitly describes Abraham in the Quran as a Moslem.

When Mohammad (PBUH) brought the message of Islam, it superseded the previous versions of the message and therefore, from then on, it became the only form of Islam to be followed. What verse 3:85 is saying is that Islam is the only accepted faith by God. That includes the faith of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (PBUT) at their respective times. It suffices to look at the previous verse 3:84 to see that this is exactly what 3:85 is talking about:

"Say: We have believed in God and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Moslems [submitting] to Him." (3:84)

You can also see what verse 2:62 is talking about from the verses just before and just after. In those verses God is reprimanding people at the time of Moses who were anything but true followers. In that context, God revealed verse 2:62 reassuring us that those who were true followers of any of his prophets have nothing to worry about. In this verse, those followers are labeled by their respective religions at the time, and the past tense is used to talk about them.

I see no case for abrogation here. The Jews and the Christians at the time of Moses and Jesus (PBUT), as well as other followers of God's prophets, are all Moslems in the eyes of God according to the stated Islamic doctrine.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 15:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
I agree that the context of 2:62 is the story of the people of Moses (pbuh) but the fact that 2:62 includes the Christians and the Sabeans, without specifying an era, tells me that the verse is making a general moral out of a specific story, and therefore cannot be said to apply to specific times.

The dilemma to resolve, if there is one, is that people cannot be "among the losers" and "will not grieve" at the same time, so the people referenced in 2:62 must not be the people referenced in 3:85. How can that be? The only way I see how is to notice the particular verb God uses in 3:85, يبتغ which means to seek or to desire. I do not, however, quite know its significance. Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, says that it means preferring his religion even after God has sent a new prophet, e.g., Jews staying with Judaism and not accepting Jesus, peace be upon him.

BTW, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 98, includes this verse in this abrogation claim which he rejects:

Shu`la's refutation is that all three verses can be easily combined. He said that if God had said in 2:62 or 5:69 that the named people's religions were accepted, then the claim of abrogation would've had merit. But, Shu`la noted, God clearly qualified those people by saying that they believed in God and the Hereafter and that "cannot be without believing in Muhammad (PBUH)."

I think what he meant that people who have not heard of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his message but believed correctly are the ones covered by 2:62 and 5:69.

Anyway, it is good to see that he believed that as long as there is an explanation that makes the abrogation claim unnecessary, such claim should be rejected.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 19:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I agree that the context of 2:62 is the story of the people of Moses (pbuh) but the fact that 2:62 includes the Christians and the Sabeans, without specifying an era, tells me that the verse is making a general moral out of a specific story, and therefore cannot be said to apply to specific times.

The dilemma to resolve, if there is one, is that people cannot be "among the losers" and "will not grieve" at the same time, so the people referenced in 2:62 must not be the people referenced in 3:85. How can that be? The only way I see how is to notice the particular verb God uses in 3:85, يبتغ which means to seek or to desire. I do not, however, quite know its significance. Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, says that it means preferring his religion even after God has sent a new prophet, e.g., Jews staying with Judaism and not accepting Jesus, peace be upon him.

Great points. I must admit that when I read what I had written in this case, I wasn't as happy with it as I was with the other cases. For the record, I had written it some time ago in response to an anti-Islam message, so I may have let my emotions affect the logic here. This needs work.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 03:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan" about this case,


وهذا القول لا يصح لوجهين: الأول أنه إن أشير بقوله "والذين هادوا والنصارى" إلى من كان تابعا لنبيه قبل أن يبعث النبي الآخر فأولئك على الصواب، وإن أشير إلى من كان في زمن نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم فإن من ضرورة من لم يبدل دينه ولم يحرف أن يؤمن بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ويتبعه. والثاني أن هذه الآية خبر والأخبار لا يدخلها النسخ


He agrees about the time period meant but he also adds a good point and that both verses are declarative sentences; they do not contain a command and therefore cannot abrogate or be abrogated.

He makes that conclusion after relating the various interpretations of the verse as follows,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا".الآية. اختلف المفسرون في معنى هذه الآية على ثلاث أقوال:
الأول ان المعنى إن الذين آمنوا من هذه الأمة والذين هادوا وهم أتباع موسى والنصارى وهم أتباع عيسى والصابؤون الخارجون من الكفر إلى الإسلام، من آمن أي من دام منهم على الإيمان.
والثاني إن الذين آمنوا بألسنتهم وهم المنافقون والذين هادوا وهم اليهود والنصارى والصابؤون وهم كفار أيضا من آمن أي من دخل في الإيمان بنية صادقة.
والثالث إن المعنى "إن الذين آمنوا" ومن آمن من الذين هادوا فيكون قوله بعد هذا من آمن راجعا إلى المذكورين مع الذين آمنوا ومعناه من يؤمن منهم.
وعلى هذه الأقوال الثلاثة لا وجه لادعاء نسخ هذه الآية.
وقد قيل إنها منسوخة بقوله "ومن يبتغ غير الإسلام دينا فلن يقبل منه". فأخبرنا المبارك بن علي الصيرفي قال أخبرنا أحمد بن الحسن بن قريش قال أخبرنا إبراهيم بن عمر البرمكي قال أخبرنا محمد بن إسماعيل الوراق قال حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال حدثنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال حدثنا أبو صالح قال حدثني معاوية بن صالح عن علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى والصابئين" الآية، قال فأنزل الله تعالى بعد هذه الآية "ومن يبتغ غير الإسلام دينا فلن يقبل منه وهو في الآخرة من الخاسرين". قلت فكأنه أشار بهذا إلى النسخ

He reports three alternative interpretations that annul the claim,
  1. It refers to true believers of all named,
  2. It refers to people who turn to belief,
  3. It means those of "the Jews, Christians and Sabeans" who have believed, but it skips the verb "have believed" so as not to repeat it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 06:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He agrees about the time period meant but he also adds a good point and that both verses are declarative sentences; they do not contain a command and therefore cannot abrogate or be abrogated!

I agree about the time aspect. Since the verbs in 2:62 are in past tense, it is a valid interpretation that the verse is talking about the past at the time of the corresponding prophets PBUT. Although the past tense is used in Arabic to express definitive statements even for the present and the future, the fact that there is a valid interpretation based on the past tense that reconciles the two verses is enough to resolve the issue of abrogation.

When it comes to the second point, I disagree with the argument although I agree with the conclusion that the verse is not abrogated. Although I believe that statements of fact cannot be abrogated, and have used this very argument to refute the abrogation case of 2:219,



I consider 2:62, in its present/future tense interpretation, to be a ruling albeit phrased in the form of a statement of fact, since it effectively sets a rule that people can obey or disobey with stated consequences.



It becomes a pure statement of fact only in its past tense interpretation, but in that case there is no contradiction in the first place that would require invoking the statement of fact aspect to refute the abrogation claim.

PS: After writing this, I found a similar opinion on the second page of the text of نواسخ القرآن لابن الجوزي. Here is the translation of that part:

"Statements have two categories; one whose form is that of a statement and whose meaning is that of command as in the verse



and that can be abrogated, and one which is a pure statement and that cannot be abrogated because that would be tantamount to lying which is impossible."

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ali (according to Dr. Faaris),
Qataada (according to Abu-abdillah Shu`la),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama (who claimed that the majority are likewise).

Against:
Salmaan Al-Faarisi (implied by a hadeeth quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Mujaahid and Ad-Dhahhaak (according to Ibn Salaama),
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer (according to Dr. Zayd),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di (Al-Yamaani),
At-Tabari (leaning, as quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Al-Asfahaani,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Khazraji,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris (implied).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2010, 05:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 402-408 in volume 1 of his book.

First, he states that the basis of the abrogation claim was two identical narrations of Ibn-Abbas, which don't say that 3:85 abrogated 2:62, but rather that God revealed 2:62 then He revealed 3:85, so the abrogation claim is only implied. One of the two narrations is disconnected.

He then discusses the opinions of Al-Tabari, Ibn Al-Jawzi, and Ibn Katheer. They are based on an interpretation that the promises of 2:62 apply only to those who followed their religion before the next religion was revealed. Some cite a story that supports this interpretation, which describes the circumstances of revelation involving a concern by Salman Al-Faresi about those who died before Islam. Some use the qualification "those [among them] who believed in God and the Last Day" as a support for this interpretation.

Zaid then asserts his own view that 2:62 is unabrogatable since it is a statement of fact. He follows with a killer argument. He cites another, almost identical verse,


whose only difference with the verse that is claimed to be abrogated,


is the order of two words, parsing of one word, and one less phrase that is fairly neutral. He points out that, with certainty, chapter 5 was revealed after chapter 3, so 5:69 cannot possibly be abrogated by 3:85 since 5:69 was revealed later than 3:85. Since 5:69 makes the same assertion as 2:62, it makes no sense that 2:62 would be abrogated either. He also notes that nobody claimed that 5:69 was abrogated, probably because of the irrefutable timing conflict.

Most of the discussion was not about the abrogation claim, but about explaining away the possibility that non-Muslims, after Islam was revealed, would be promised by God that "no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve." Zaid argues that although some People of the Book after Islam fit "those who believed in God and the Last Day," this is still not enough. He says that this expression of belief in God and the Last Day is used in the Quran to denote belief in all aspects of Islam, not just in God and the Last Day. Although this is an important discussion, it is not related to abrogation. It is, however, likely one of the reasons why abrogation was claimed in the first place.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 30 Apr 2010, 05:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 42-44, focuses on the same word I focused on above, namely يبتغ. His point is that 2:62 speaks of people who did not live to see Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, or never knew of his message. His evidence for that interpretation is

He says that 3:85 speaks of those who look for a religion, Islam being one of the available religions to them to study, but decide on other than Islam. He says that the exegesis of Imaam Mahmood Shaltoot confirms this interpretation.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 04:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Ihab argues against this abrogation claim on pages 325-327 of his book. His main thesis is that 2:62 qualifies its subjects by "belief in God and the Hereafter" and that justifies the reward. He also mentions that "Muslim" includes followers of previous religions, and gives the usual examples of verses about Muslims among the followers of Abraham and Jesus to support this point. He includes a verse that I thought was quite pointed for this abrogation claim,


since it uses the same wording as 2:62 in describing the fate of its subjects, and describes those subjects by the verb version of Muslim, which is easier to argue would include more than the current Muslims.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 3:85 abrogate 2:62 or 5:69?
PostPosted: 31 May 2010, 17:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The dilemma to resolve, if there is one, is that people cannot be "among the losers" and "will not grieve" at the same time, so the people referenced in 2:62 must not be the people referenced in 3:85. How can that be? The only way I see how is to notice the particular verb God uses in 3:85, يبتغ which means to seek or to desire. I do not, however, quite know its significance. Ibn Katheer, rahimahullah, says that it means preferring his religion even after God has sent a new prophet, e.g., Jews staying with Judaism and not accepting Jesus, peace be upon him.

How did I miss this before? God uses the same word only two verses prior,

Which clearly says that the religion of God is Islam and that Islam is the submission of all creatures to God, willingly for those given a choice or unwillingly for those not given a choice. Thus, the meaning of 3:85, and God knows best, is that seeking a religion other than submission to the one true God, Allah, while knowing about Islam, is unacceptable to God. Thus, there is no contradiction with 2:62 requiring abrogation claim, since 2:62 does not state that the people it enumerates knew about Islam and chose something else.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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 06 Dec 2019, 23:21

All times are UTC

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