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: Validation process
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 10:00 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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.

لسان العرب says النافِلة ما كان زيادة على الأَصل so the night prayer in 17:79 could be a mandate under the interpretation that the 'extra' aspect here is that the Prophet (PBUH) has to do it while others don't have to.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 22:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 758, mentions two more opinions about the abrogating,
  1. Ibn Khuzayma said that what abrogated 73:1-2 is

    which is something I wondered why no scholar has mentioned. Now I know that two have! Ibn Khuzayma as well as Ibn Salaama in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 130.

    He also said that the clause ورتل القرآن ترتيلا (and recite the Quran well) was abrogated by

    Is that a strange claim or what? Reciting the Quran well does not make the reciter's life hard! Quite the contrary, he understands the Quran better because he gives himself time to reflect on its meaning and because the reward from God for good recitation blesses his life.

  2. An-Nahhaas and Makki reported that some said that 73:1-2 were abrogated by the mandate of the five regular prayers. Perhaps they were referring to An-Nasfi? The regular prayers are additional requirements, not a replacement of night prayer the Prophet (PBUH) was required to offer. The proof of that is the simple observation that he kept offering the night prayer every night till he died. If he thought it was abrogated, he would have stopped offering them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 22:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 758, mentions two more opinions about the abrogating,
  1. Ibn Kuzayma said that what abrogated 73:1-2 is 73:3 which is something I wondered why no scholar has mentioned.

Isn't it possible that 73:2 is designating the general time that the prayer is mandated, being the night, rather than requiring the prayer to last the entire night, and that the exception in it is an allowance to skip some nights altogether rather than a deduction from the length of the prayer in a given night? Linguistically, the exception would be from "Arise [to pray]" not from "the night." In that case, 73:3 would be addressing the duration of prayers in those nights when prayers are held.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 23:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Isn't it possible that ... the exception in it is an allowance to skip some nights altogether rather than a deduction from the length of the prayer in a given night? Linguistically, the exception would be from "Arise [to pray]" not from "the night." In that case, 73:3 would be addressing the duration of prayers in those nights when prayers are held.

Clever! Yes, it's linguistically possible. However, it is far fetched IMHO, because the notion of standing up all night but a brief period is repeated elsewhere, consider,

That verse praises worshipers whose sleep at night is brief, not those who slept a few nights. :)

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 11:02 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
I noticed something tonight that may shed some light on this abrogation claim. Chapters 73 (المزمل) and Chapter 74 (المدثر) have a long verse each that follows a different style from the rest of the Chapter (73:20 in Chapter 73, and 74:31 in Chapter 74). In both cases, the verse was "in response" to how people reacted to earlier verses. In the case of 73:20, the response was to the Muslims taking 73:1-4 as a mandatory command to them, and in the case of 74:31, the response was to the nonbelievers making light of a threat in the previous verses (saying that if there are only 19 guards in the Hellfire, they can overpower them).

It makes sense that in the early days of the revelation (both Chapters are among the first revealed), God would give elaborate responses to such reactions until Muslims get used to the style of the Quran. IMHO, in 73:20 God explains that not every mandate to the Prophet (PBUH) is a mandate to everyone, and in 74:31 God explains the figurative and faith-testing aspect of the examples given in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 14:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
God would give elaborate responses to such reactions until Muslims get used to the style of the Quran. IMHO, in 73:20 God explains that not every mandate to the Prophet (PBUH) is a mandate to everyone, and in 74:31 God explains the figurative and faith-testing aspect of the examples given in the Quran.

Isn't it interesting that most Muslims did not "get" the style of the Quran until the last Century? They interpreted the teaching style as abrogation!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 10 Sep 2010, 17:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
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.

لسان العرب says النافِلة ما كان زيادة على الأَصل so the night prayer in 17:79 could be a mandate under the interpretation that the 'extra' aspect here is that the Prophet (PBUH) has to do it while others don't have to.

That is one of the arguments quoted by Ar-Raazi, in his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 15, page 795, as evidence that the command in 73:2 was a recommendation and not a mandate. He quotes two other arguments:

  1. If standing up at night in prayer were a mandate on the Prophet (PBUH), then it would have been a mandate on his followers too, because God orders Muslims to follow the Prophet (PBUH), e.g.,

    Ar-Raazi seems to agree with this argument.

  2. The options stated in 73:2-4 mean it's not a mandate because letting the person decide implies no mandate. `Ataaya agrees but Ar-Raazi doesn't. His argument is that the mandate may be the standing up at night in prayer but for how long, it's up to the worshiper. I agree that this is a valid refutation of this particular argument.

`Ataaya makes a very interesting point: that the clause "He knew you would not hold it" (73:20) refers to the Quran, not to the prayer, evidenced by the very next clause, "Therefore, recite what you can of the Quran." Thus, if any amendment is mentioned in 73:20 is to make clear that 73:1-4 did not mean to recite the entire Quran every night! Only whatever portion of it the worshiper is able to recite.

`Ataaya also agrees with me that the phrase فتاب عليكم means that God acknowledged the extra burden you've put on yourselves and relieves you of it, proving again that they were not commanded to do it.

Linguistic wrote:
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 758, mentions two more opinions about the abrogating,
  1. Ibn Kuzayma said that what abrogated 73:1-2 is 73:3 which is something I wondered why no scholar has mentioned.

Ar-Raazi opined, like I did, that 73:2-4 give options to the Prophet (PBUH), not that any one option abrogates the others.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 04:21 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
On pages 123-125 of this book, the author makes two good points about this abrogation claim.

  1. 73:1-4 could not possibly have been a mandate on the Muslims (other than the Prophet PBUH) as evidenced by the wording in 73:20 "a group from those with you" since this implies that some of those with him did the night prayers and some didn't, so it wasn't a mandate on Muslims at large. I think we mentioned this argument before.

  2. The author makes a novel claim. He says that 73:20 was not revealed a year after 73:1-4 as often reported, but it was probably revealed much later, in Madinah. His evidence: 73:20 mentions "others fighting for the cause of God" and that didn't happen until the Madinah days.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 16:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4494
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On pages 123-125 of this book, the author makes two good points about this abrogation claim.
...
The author makes a novel claim. He says that 73:20 was not revealed a year after 73:1-4 as often reported, but it was probably revealed much later, in Madinah. His evidence: 73:20 mentions "others fighting for the cause of God" and that didn't happen until the Madinah days.

An excellent point, except that the verse actually says "there will be...", so it's a prediction.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 73:20 abrogate 73:1-4?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 19:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1831
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
An excellent point, except that the verse actually says "there will be...", so it's a prediction.

You are right. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


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 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 16 Nov 2018, 15:33

All times are UTC

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