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  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 12 May 2010, 17:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
This is the last case Ali Hasan Al-Areedh discusses in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 335-339. He accepts the claim of abrogation in this case. His main argument is that the words used in 73:20 suggest abrogation.

He writes that this claim is based on an authentic hadeeth narrated by `Aa'isha, may God have been pleased with her, and reported by Muslim. In this hadeeth, `Aa'isha answers two people who came to her to ask questions, Sa`d ibn `Aamir and Hakeem ibn Aflah. She told them, "God has mandated the night prayer. The Prophet (PBUH) and his companions stood up at night praying for a whole year until their feet swell. Then God revealed the ease. Night prayer became voluntary." Al-Areedh says that this hadeeth is also reported by An-Nasaa'i and that As-Suyooti said it was also reported by Abu-Daawood, Muhammad ibn Nasr and Al-Bayhaqi. Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas concluded that night prayer was mandatory upon the Prophet and his companions and then abrogated. Other people who shared this view included Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Ibn Seereen.

My humble comment is that this is not a hadeeth! It is the view of `Aa'isha, since she did not say that the Prophet told her that night prayer was mandatory. There is nothing in 73:1-4 that imply a mandate, e.g., a warning against non-compliance, nor is there any cause to conclude that the command was for anyone other than the Prophet, peace be upon him.

Al-Areedh then tells of the opinion that the command was not abrogated, but rather explained. That is, 73:20 offers options about night prayer in terms of ritual and time; we can pray any time of the night and any duration of it and can recite the Quran instead of standing in prayer. Al-Areedh does not attempt to refute that opinion!

Al-Areedh's conclusion agrees with Ash-Shaafi`i who said that 73:20 abrogated 73:1-4 and 73:20 was abrogated by the mandated five prayers.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 12 May 2010, 18:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He writes that this claim is based on an authentic hadeeth narrated by `Aa'isha, may God have been pleased with her, and reported by Muslim. In this hadeeth, `Aa'isha answers two people who came to her to ask questions, Sa`d ibn `Aamir and Hakeem ibn Aflah. She told them, "God has mandated the night prayer. The Prophet (PBUH) and his companions stood up at night praying for a whole year until their feet swell. Then God revealed the ease. Night prayer became voluntary." Al-Areedh says that this hadeeth is also reported by An-Nasaa'i and that As-Suyooti said it was also reported by Abu-Daawood, Muhammad ibn Nasr and Al-Bayhaqi.

Was Aisha, may God be pleased with her, born before 73:1-4 and 73:20 were revealed?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 12 May 2010, 19:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Was Aisha, may God be pleased with her, born before 73:1-4 and 73:20 were revealed?

Great question! She was born 17 B.H., so she was about 4 when 73:1-4 were revealed. Ibn Abbaas was not born yet.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 23 May 2010, 04:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Nada gives an excellent treatment of this abrogation case on pages 162-166 of his book. Here are the highlights.

  • The fact that the Prophet (PBUH) is addressed in 73:1 by المزمل which is a personal endearing term, rather than by "Prophet" or "Messenger" is evidence that the command is particular to him rather than being a command to the nation at large conveyed by addressing him. Nada credits that observation to السايس .

  • The use of لك in نافلة لك in this verse


    is further evidence that the command for night prayers is specific to the Prophet (PBUH). The meaning of نافلة in this case is an additional item not in the sense of being optional but in the sense of being additional to the Prophet compared to other Muslims. Again, السايس is credited with this analysis.

  • Further evidence that 73:1-4 was not a requirement on Muslims at large is that 73:20 mentions "a group of those with you." If 73:1-4 was a requirement on all Muslims, it wouldn't be just "a group."

  • He cites a narration by Ibn Abbas describing what happened between the beginning and the end of revelation of Chapter 73. It is undisputed that Ibn Abbas had not been born yet during that epoch (discussed in the previous two posts).

The conclusion Nada supports is that some companions imposed the night prayers upon themselves and 73:20 came to relieve them, but it left the requirement of 73:1-4 intact on its intended addressee, the Prophet (PBUH).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 30 May 2010, 01:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
In his book, Ihab gives detailed treatment of the 5 cases that Zaid accepted as abrogation in the Quran, which include this case. His argument on pages 339-340 is similar to the above, that 73:1-4 is specific to the Prophet (PBUH) while 73:20 is addressing the Sahaba. He makes the point salient by saying that in 73:20 God did not say "علم أن لن تحصيه فتاب عليك " but made it in plural form.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2010, 08:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Al-Ghali provides nice analysis of this abrogation claim on pages 177-183 of his book. Here are the highlights.

  1. He supports that 73:1-4 is a command for the Prophet (PBUH) alone. As he was arguing the point, an idea occurred to me and on the next page, he beat me to it :). He gave evidence by the fact that


    is a similarly phrased command that is specific to the Prophet (PBUH).

  2. He is taking the part of 73:20 that says "He knew that there will be sick among you" not as justifying lightening the burden, but rather explaining why He did not put the burden on them in the first place. Hence فتاب عليكم is talking about 73:1-4 exempting them from that burden. Nice angle. The same line of argument can be used in 8:65-66, but it sounds less compelling there.

  3. He notes that abrogation being tied to a change in circumstance would contradict that this is an abrogation case. Why? Because of the part in 73:20 that says "others fighting for the sake of God," as no fighting had been instituted or carried out at the time of revelation of 73:20 so the 'circumstance' hadn't happened yet. Excellent point.

  4. He elaborates on the liberal use of the word نسخ by early Muslims as he argues against the many narrations claiming abrogation in this case, and says that some may mean abrogation of the understanding of the verse at the time, since the Sahaba followed 73:1-4 without being required to. Interesting point.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 13 Jun 2010, 18:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghali provides nice analysis of this abrogation claim on pages 177-183 of his book. Here are the highlights.

    ...
  1. He elaborates on the liberal use of the word نسخ by early Muslims as he argues against the many narrations claiming abrogation in this case, and says that some may mean abrogation of the understanding of the verse at the time, since the Sahaba followed 73:1-4 without being required to. Interesting point.

Exactly what I was arguing in this topic (64:16/3:102). One of the benefits I see from the revelation of 3:102 the way it was revealed, i.e., without elaboration, was exactly what happened: Some Muslims interpret revelations in a way that overburdens them and forget that God has repeatedly said elsewhere in the Quran that He wants for believers ease, not hardship. It's a lesson for all Muslims to examine the entire Quran to understand it, not to take one verse and jump to a conclusion from it. And isn't that lesson applicable to the abrogation dogma as well?

I maintain that this explanation of Al-Ghaali of what naskh means, applies by extrapolation to all corrections God makes to what people said or did. Among those corrections is to reveal the Quran in order to correct the falsehood inserted by the Jews into the Torah. Thus, when we say the Quran abrogated the Torah, what we ought to say is the Quran abrogated the Old Testament in order to resurrect the Torah. This is similar to the verse,

That is why the word naskh was used in 2:106, IMHO. It is the only word in Arabic that means both confirmation and annulment!

Love the other points too that Al-Ghaali raised.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:66 abrogate 8:65?
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 04:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
In commenting on the 8:66/8:65 case, Pragmatic wrote,
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Professor Muhammad Ali Mustafa refutes this case on the basis of contingency. He writes,

وجه الإحكام أن الحكم الجديد معلل بالضعف {وعلم أن فيكم ضعفاً} فلا يسقط الحكم السابق بالكلية بل يعود بذهاب الضعف وعودة القوة

Translation: The view of no abrogation is based on the fact that the new command is contingent upon weakness, thus the old command does not become invalid, but rather becomes valid as soon as weakness goes away and strength comes back.
Interesting angle.

Interesting indeed. 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.

In this case, 73:20/73:1-4, there is a distinct difference from the above case, 8:66/8:65, namely, the addressee is different! The situation here is this. God says in 73:20 that He knew that Muslims would not be able to stay up at night, every night, praying. So, why did He command them in 73:1-4 then? The answer is He didn't. The command was not to them, it was to the Prophet (PBUH). This also means that the easing in 73:20 is only for them, because God would not command the Prophet to do something that He knew he couldn't do.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 23 Jun 2010, 18:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghali provides nice analysis of this abrogation claim on pages 177-183 of his book

He also offers this simple argument for refuting the claim: There are many interpretations offered by the scholars of various parts of verses 73:1-4 as well as 73:20, thus abrogation cannot be claimed when many explanations can reconcile the verses. Some of these alternative explanations are:

  • The command in 73:1-4 is not a mandate; there is no evidence that it is.
  • The command in 73:1-4 was to recite the Quran, not to pray. This is credible since prayer was not formatted at that time, so Muslims could pray only by reciting the Quran. And 73:20 instructs Muslims to recite any portion of the Quran they feel comfortable doing. Thus, 73:20 repeats what 73:1-4 said to the Prophet.

    I'd humbly add one more,
  • The imperative قم الليل does not necessarily mean to stand up, it could easily mean to stay up, i.e., not sleep. I think that maybe that's what Al-Hasan and Ibn Seereen meant when they said that night prayer in any amount and at any time of the night remains a mandate on Muslims.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2010, 06:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The fact that many Sahaaba complied with 73:1-4 even though they were not addressed by it does not change the fact that they were not addressed by it. They did it to please God, may He have been pleased with them.

That argument is why Dr. Ali Jum`a, in his book النسخ عند الأصوليين, page 88, rejects this abrogation claim. He maintains that 73:1-4 was never abrogated because the mandate of night prayer remained upon the Prophet (PBUH) alone. He quotes 17:79,

as well as Ibn Abbaas's interpretation of it as a mandate specific to the Prophet (PBUH). I'm not sure it can be concluded from 17:79 that night prayer was a mandate on the Prophet (PBUH). The word نافلة means an extra. That does not imply a mandate. But I do not see 73:1-4 as a mandate either. I see it as a strong recommendation. God told His Messenger, in the very next verse, why He so advises him:

It's training for the huge task ahead. 17:79 is similarly a strong recommendation, but this time it is accompanied by a lucrative enticement: a particularly praiseworthy station in Paradise.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 16 Nov 2018, 15:34

All times are UTC

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