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  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 20:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi claimed that

was abrogated by


Ibn Salaama echoes the claim and uses for evidence a fabricated hadeeth that has been circulated in the literature with little scrutiny, even by exegetes, says Dr. Az-Zalmi. The phony hadeeth says that the Prophet (PBUH) started reciting Chapter 53 (Soorat An-Najm) until he got to

then, the fake hadeeth alleges, instead of saying the next verse,

he said instead, "تلك الغرانيق العلى وشفاعتهم ترتجى" (Those are the high prizes and their intercession is hoped for). The fake hadeeth continues to say that when the polytheist heard that they prostrated, except Al-Waleed ibn Al-Mugheera (or in another report Abu-Usayha Sa`eed Al-`Aasi). Then, the fake hadeeth says Gabriel came and corrected the Prophet!

Dr. Az-Zalmi then talks about how orientalists and antagonists, such as Salman Rushdi, have capitalized on this bogus hadeeth. Dr. Az-Zalmi says that a number of exegetes and other scholars did point out how that alleged hadeeth is a fake, such as Al-Qurtubi, Judge `Iyaadh, Abu-Bakr Ar-Raazi and An-Nahhaas. Al-Qurtubi and Ar-Raazi said the narration is unauthentic. An-Nahhaas said the narration comes from Al-Waaqidi whom he discredits, and from Qataada and from Az-Zuhri by way of Abu-Bakr ibn Abdir-Rahmaan ibn Al-Haarith ibn Hishaam. None of the narrations are recognized by scholars of the Hadeeth and all of them are disconnected, i.e., do not end with a narration from a Sahaabi of something he heard the Prophet say or see him do.

While it is scholarly obvious that the alleged hadeeth is a fake, not to mention weird, it actually does not prove the abrogation claim! The claimants forgot the verse that immediately comes after 87:6,

Thus, theoretically, if God wanted the Prophet (PBUH) to forget some verses, He would have caused him to forget them.

Besides, 22:58 speaks of a wish, not a verse. Thus, what Satan throws goes into the wish and does not affect revelation, so where is the conflict? Other than the fake hadeeth, there is no evidence that the Prophet (PBUH) expressed any corrupted wish publicly.

See also this related topic: Did 87:6 abrogate 20:114?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 01:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Excellent information. I have read about the alleged hadeeth several times in the context in 22:52, and not one author bothered to mention that its authenticity is poor.

Now, about the abrogation claim. In addition to the valid point that you raised, doesn't 22:52 say "a prophet or a messenger before you"? How could this possibly conflict with 87:6 that talks specifically about the Prophet Muhammad himself (PBUH)?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 03:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
doesn't 22:52 say "a prophet or a messenger before you"? How could this possibly conflict with 87:6 that talks specifically about the Prophet Muhammad himself (PBUH)?

Great point! One cannot extrapolate without evidence.

Speaking of the fake hadeeth, ironically the chapter it refers to, Chapter 53, starts out with God swearing that not one word the Prophet utters out of desire (cf. wish), rather, it's all revelation! So, how can he utter what Satan threw in? Satan does not reveal anything because he has no information to reveal. What he does is inspire those who take him as an ally,

Thus, whoever made up this hadeeth, is accusing the prophet (PBUH) of taking Satan for ally, :astaghfir: God forbid! And shame on every scholar who did not rise up to defend the Prophet from this nonsense.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 04:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Al-Qurtubi, Judge `Iyaadh, An-Nahhaas (implied),
Al-Aloosi, Ar-Raazi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 04:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
It just occurred to me that


may be talking about the corruption of previous scriptures leading to their abrogation and bringing a new revelation, and that applies to all previous revelations and prophets but not to the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH). It all depends on the meaning of تمنى which has been controversial among the exegetes so far.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2010, 13:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 514, reports that An-Nahhaas too reported this claim but he does not quote his opinion of it.

Such claim makes an assumption about the meaning of 10:52, which has been conjectured by many scholars without much agreement. That assumption being that Satan would confuse the Prophet, peace be upon him, as revelation descended on him and add words to it that the prophet recites as if they were part of the revelation, but then God abrogates what Satan did and clears up the revelation!

This wrong assumption is the basis on which some scholars wrote that there were "Satanic verses" in Chapter 53 that quickly were removed from it. That was the theme of Salman Rushdi's novel.

It's a wrong interpretation for the following reasons,

  • 10:52 speaks of prophets before Muhammad, peace be upon them. It cannot extend to Muhammad (PBUH) without further evidence. That's what you said, Pragmatic.
  • 10:52 includes prophets with messengers. Correct me if I'm wrong; only a messenger receives verses to recite to people. Prophets do not receive verses, only revelation of values and laws. That is the technical difference between a prophet and a messenger.
  • 10:52 speaks of a wish. A wish is private. If Satan cast words into a messenger's wish and he expressed those wishes in public, people may think it's revelation. That is why God says that He corrects (ينسخ) what Satan did and reveals the verses God wants revealed. This clears up any misunderstanding about what is a verse and what is a wish.

If that is understood, then there can be no cause to claim abrogation, since 87:6 speaks about reassuring the Prophet (PBUH) that he won't forget what God reveals to him. How is that related to a wish he may or may not have had?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 04:19 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
In addition to the valid point that you raised, doesn't 22:52 say "a prophet or a messenger before you"? How could this possibly conflict with 87:6 that talks specifically about the Prophet Muhammad himself (PBUH)?

I noticed that the verse after 22:52,


makes it almost certain that 22:52 is about corruption of scriptures and abrogation using later scriptures. The fitna referred to in 22:53 fits like a glove what's happening with many of today's people of the book.

This is why 22:52 does not include the Prophet (PBUH) since no corruption has touched the Quran and nothing will abrogate it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2011, 04:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
It just occurred to me that


may be talking about the corruption of previous scriptures leading to their abrogation and bringing a new revelation, and that applies to all previous revelations and prophets but not to the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH). It all depends on the meaning of تمنى which has been controversial among the exegetes so far.

Well, not so controversial according to "لسان العرب". This seals the deal as far as I am concerned:

مني (لسان العرب)

...

وتَمَنَّى الكتابَ: قرأَه وكَتَبَه.
وفي التنزيل العزيز: إِلا إِذا تَمَنَّى أَلْقى الشيطانُ في أُمْنِيَّتِه؛ أَي قَرَأَ وتَلا فأَلْقَى في تِلاوته ما ليس فيه؛ قال في مَرْثِيَّةِ عثمان، رضي الله عنه:تَمَنَّى كتابَ اللهِ أَوَّلَ لَيْلِه، وآخِرَه لاقَى حِمامَ المَقادِرِ (* قوله« أول ليله وآخره» كذا بالأصل، والذي في نسخ النهاية: أول ليلة وآخرها.) والتَّمَنِّي: التِّلاوةُ.
وتَمَنَّى إِذا تَلا القرآن؛ وقال آخر: تَمَنَّى كِتابَ اللهِ آخِرَ لَيْلِه، تَمَنِّيَ داودَ الزَّبُورَ على رِسْلِ أَي تلا كتاب الله مُتَرَسِّلاً فيه كما تلا داودُ الزبور مترَسِّلاً فيه. قال أَبو منصور: والتِّلاوةُ سميت أُمْنيّة لأَنَّ تالي القرآنِ إِذا مَرَّ بآية رحمة تَمَنَّاها، وإِذا مرَّ بآية عذاب تَمَنَّى أَن يُوقَّاه.
وفي التنزيل العزيز: ومنهم أُمِّيُّونَ لا يَعْلَمُون الكتاب إِلا أَمانيَّ؛ قال أَبو إِسحق: معناه الكتاب إِلا تِلاوة، وقيل: إَلاَّ أَمانِيَّ إِلا أَكاذيبَ، والعربُ تقول: أَنت إِنما تَمْتَني هذا القولَ أَي تَخْتَلِقُه، قال: ويجوز أَن يكون أَمانيَّ نُسِب إِلى أَنْ القائل إِذا قال ما لا يعلمه فكأَنه إِنما يَتَمَنَّاه، وهذا مستَعمل في كلام الناس، يقولون للذي يقول ما لا حقيقة له وهو يُحبه: هذا مُنًى وهذه أُمْنِيَّة.
وفي حديث الحسن: ليس الإِيمانُ بالتَّحَلِّي ولا بالتَّمَنِّي ولكن ما وَقَر في القلب وصَدَّقَتْه الأَعْمال أَي ليس هو بالقول الذي تُظهره بلسانك فقط، ولكن يجب أَن تَتْبَعَه معرِفةُ القلب، وقيل: هو من التَّمَنِّي القراءة والتِّلاوة. يقال: تَمَنَّى إِذا قرأَ.

Translation (crux): The verb "تمنى" in 22:52 squarely means "recited" and was poorly translated as "wished" which is a legitimate second meaning for the verb.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2011, 14:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Well, not so controversial according to "لسان العرب". This seals the deal as far as I am concerned:
...
Translation (crux): The verb "تمنى" in 22:52 squarely means "recited" and was poorly translated as "wished" which is a legitimate second meaning for the verb.

Interesting, but then how do they explain the "wishing verse",

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 87:6 abrogate 22:52?
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2011, 01:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Interesting, but then how do they explain the "wishing verse",

Wishing is one of the meanings. Reciting is another, so the context determines which. What happened is that Reciting died out as a valid meaning in the common language over the centuries, so some exegetes opted for the contemporary common meaning in 22:52 in spite of the clear context that would point to the other meaning.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 


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 06 Dec 2019, 23:23

All times are UTC

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