TheMostReadBook.org

In his book, Taher makes the observation on page 5 that the book by Hebatullah Ibn Salama is almost verbatim copy of the book by Abdullah Ibn Hazm who died 90 years before him. He further mentions that Ibn Salama said that the sword verse abrogated 124 verses while Ibn Hazm and others said they were 114 verses, and Taher postulates that this was just a copying error by Ibn Salama.

Another statement about the burden of proof is mentioned on pages 48-49 of this book that quotes Al-Nahhas (The Abrogating and Abrogated in the Noble Quran, page 22). My translation:


Edit: Above quote is inaccurate, see this post

and another statement mentioned on page 50 quotes Al-Shatebey (Al-Muwafeqat, part 3, page 72) as saying (my translation):

And what claim of the 365 we've looked into so far, has arguments of certainty, proof or verified knowledge? None! Unless by certainty they meant majority opinion, and by proof they meant a famous scholar's opinion and by verified knowledge they meant a narration ending with a scholar but not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH).

What the pro-abrogation folk had instead is a failure to interpret. Jamaal `Ataaya summarizes the causes for claiming abrogation into the following points:

• Wrong understanding of the verses. I'd add that among verses that were misunderstood are the so-called abrogation verses, e.g., 2:106, 16:101, etc.
• Confusing the subjects of the two verses. This is pervasive in their arguments.
• Dissecting a verse instead of taking it as a whole. Not only does that conflict with what 2:106 says, it makes no sense.
• Inability to understand the spirit and purpose of the Quran! That is a bit harsh, but unfortunately, I have to agree.

I'd add:

• The loyal following of their teachers. That is commendable except if the opinion is wrong and can be shown to be wrong.
• Confusing naskh for abrogation. That is a fundamental pitfall that permeated the abrogation literature.
• The tendency to jump to conclusions.
• Separating a verse from its context.
• Wishful thinking.

The last three points in particular are clearly unscholarly.

More on the burden of proof. On pages 66-67 of this book, the author quotes more scholars asserting the burden of proof. Most notable is an elaborate statement by Ibn-Hazm Al-Andalusi (my translation):

Edit: In the Internet copy (which is 126 pages long), it's not pages 66-67 but pages 55-56.


The author goes on to say that many scholars have said similar things about the burden of proof, and that he has not found a single scholar who opposes them. Given the doubt about abrogation in every single claim, the author concludes that there is an implicit unanimity that there are no abrogated verses in the Quran.

Perhaps he meant Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri? He is also from Andalusia and the quote you mentioned sounds more like something who would say. The other Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Abu-Abdilaah, did exactly what the other Ibn Hazm said should not be done!

He quotes the full name as Abu Muhammad Aly Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and cites the book Al-Ihkam fi Usul Al-Ahkam, part 4, page 84.

That's Azh-Zhaahiri's book. I was right.

According to Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 370-371, Ash-Shawkaani wrote in his book فتح القدير, volume 2, page 422, that the meaning of

is that the verses of the Quran are fixed, perfected, without fault, undemolishable, like an established building. Some said it means they have not been abrogated like the Torah and the Gospel were.

My humble comment, which I expressed before, is that it's not the Torah and the Gospel that were abrogated, but the Old and New Testaments; and it wasn't abrogation, but naskh. The difference being that abrogation is annulment while naskh is correction and restoration of the original.

`Ataaya adds a gem: he says that the addressees in the completion verse,

are all mankind! This verse is a declaration from God to humanity that His religion is Islam and the scripture is complete and fulfilled. One of the reasons the Quran was revealed is to correct all the false doctrines that people developed over the centuries and by which they changed the verses and laws of God. The Quran therefore abrogates everything that differs from it and contains nothing that was or can be abrogated. I like that to be the subtitle of a book I like to write about the abrogation issue:

Dr. Zayd responds in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, pages 53-55, to one of Al-Asfahaani's arguments in refuting abrogation. Al-Asfahaani showed that abrogation is turning truth into falsehood and God would not advocate falsehood. Dr. Zayd replies by saying that God attributes abrogation to Himself in 2:106, therefore abrogation cannot be falsehood.

That is an invalid rebuttal because it assumes that the verb used in 2:106 means abrogation. Abrogation is only one of many meanings of the word. In fact, Al-Asfahaani's argument proves that the word used in 2:106, ننسخ cannot mean abrogation

In this web article, http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104563, the author Abdul-Baasit Al-Ghareeb, critiques the works of Dr. Jawaad Affaana of Jordan. Near the end of the article, he discusses his book on abrogation الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, in which (page 31) Dr. Affaana rejects all types of abrogation except abrogation of verse and ruling together. He adds that such verse is unknown because its text is reported by less than authentic narrations. Dr. Affaana also praises Al-Asfahaani for braving the abrogation doctrine.

Then he quotes Ibn Al-Qayyim and Ash-Shatby (I'd add Waliullah Dehlvi) who all pointed out that the term "naskh" meant to the Sahaaba much more than abrogation and therefore, all narrations attributed to them must be interpreted as meaning the expanded meaning of the word, not the narrowed one invented later.

Al-Ghareeb then discusses Affaana's view that the stoning ruling was abrogated by 24:2.