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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Jul 2013, 15:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 12, reports the opinion of Dr. Abdul-Mun`im An-Nimr who said that no abrogation occurred in the Meccan part of the Quran at all and that the first abrogation event took place in Medina, 17 months after the migration, and it was the change of Qibla (prayer direction).

I re-iterate that the Qibla switchover is not an abrogation doctrine case, since there is no verse in the Quran where God orders believers to direct their prayers toward Jerusalem in the first place.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Jul 2013, 15:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 14, mentions Dr. Nasr Haamid Rizq who objected that a verse may abrogate itself. Dr. Rizq said that this violates the substitution verse, 16:101, and "contradicts the function of abrogation", which he defined as facilitation and graduation in legislation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2013, 12:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Indeed, many abrogation cases are compound commands confused for abrogation. Some scholars, such as As-Suyooti have recognized that compound commands are not abrogation cases but "deferred" commands (منسأ).

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 15, quotes Az-Zarkashi saying (my translation),
Az-Zarkashi wrote:
Whoever truely knows Naskh, knows that most of what is judged abrogated is only postponed, such as elaboration of an abridged command. All of what's in the Quran of what's been called abrogated by the Sunna to those who see it that way, is elaboration of the Quran's rule. As for the Quran, despite what many exegetes have thought, is not abrogation, but postponement and delay, or an abridged command whose elaboration is delayed till the time is right, or an address whose start is separated from its end by another address, or a specification of a generality, or a generality meant for a specificity, or the interaction of one meaning with another. Types of address are many. They thought that was abrogation, but it's not.


Indeed. I'd only add that all of the aspects of address he mentioned are covered linguistically by the word naskh. Scholars would have done all of us and each other a huge favor if they did as Al-Asfahaani did and avoided using the word naskh or were specific with which aspect of the word applied in each case they tackled. Can you imagine how much simpler this project would've been if scholars committed to saying نسخ إزالة (editing by removal) when they meant abrogation, and نسخ منسأ (later amendment) when they meant postponement, and نسخ استثناء (amendment by exception) when they meant exception, etc.?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2013, 12:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Not sure if I mentioned this before, but Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 16, mentions that As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd both stated that abrogation can happen in declarative statements, e.g., stories, not just imperative ones. Some scholars followed them up on that. Dr. Nassaar comments that most scholars disgareed, such as Ibn Jareer (At-Tabari) and Ibn Hazm. Dr. Nassaar says that As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd did dot explain their position and he thinks they were simply relying on narration, not cognizance.

Ad-Dhahhak ibn Muzaahim said that the only declarative statements that may be abrogated are those meant as imperatives. As an example, he quotes,

I agree with Ad-Dhahhaak that such statements may be abrogated, but maintain that none actually were.

On the next page, 17, Dr. Nassaar quotes An-Nahhaas strongly objecting to Ibn Salaama's statement that declarative statements may be abrogated. He called that bordering on infidelity, because it means that the sayer was lying in one of the two statements.

This is the first mention I've read that Ibn Salaama may have believed in البداء (realization of a better idea).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 21 Jul 2013, 13:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
While I agree with the no-abrogation view, I don't think the argument about God's wisdom as an explanation should be invoked. This is the counterpart of "God's ability" argument that the pro-abrogation folks invoke to support abrogation.

One of the scholars who did use the "God's ability" argument was Makki ibn Abi-Taalib. Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 17, propounds the opinions of scholars about what may be abrogated. Some, such as An-Nahhaas stated that only matters of worship may be abrogated because "God may require His worshipers do one thing then require them to do another as He pleases." Makki extended that and said that abrogation may cover the entire Quran and brought for evidence,

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2013, 15:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 37, Dr. Husayn Nassaar, quotes Az-Zurqaani defending the abrogation doctrine with three seriously flaws arguments:

  1. That 4:160 proves that God has abrogated some of His commands, since He made some foods lawful to the Israelites then forbade them,

    This argument is flawed because forbidding something that was allowed by default is not abrogation, but a new command. Another flaw is that the command is clearly contingent. It was a punishment.

  2. The consensus of the scholars has been that abrogation did occur in Islamic law. Firstly, this is a conflation of the issue, since we're only talking about abrogation in the Quran. Islamic law is taken from the Quran and the Sunna. Secondly, there is no consensus in reality. Dr. Nassaar observed that said consensus kept on dwindling as time went by.

  3. That there are many abrogated verses in the Quran! A circular argument that a prominent scholar like Az-Zurqaani should have avoided.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2013, 15:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 38, mentions Al-Ghazaali's simple argument for rejecting the abrogation doctrine: The narrations claiming abrogation of verses are all singles (آحاد). He said, (my translation), "The matter of the Quran is too prominent and distinguished to accept superficial understandings that render, without a basis, a verse abrogated."

Indeed, the force of the evidence is weak and the target is mighty.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2013, 15:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
According to Dr. Husayn Nassaar, from his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 45, Makki ibn Abi-Taalib made several assertions about naskh that demonstrate how the word has been used to conflate many notions that are unrelated.

Firstly, Makki stated that a contingent command is abrogated when its contingency is no longer. He gave as an example,

He said that this was only necessary because of Al-Hudaybiya treaty, but when it expired the practice was not the way the verse calls for.

That of course is not an example of abrogation, because, if we concede to the stated contingency, if another treaty is signed, the practice will have to revert back to what the verse says.

Another misclassification of abrogation that Makki made was his statement, quoted by Dr. Nassaar on page 46, that "implied meaning" of a verse is abrogated by another verse. He cites this verse for evidence,

He said that the verse implied that being drunk outside prayer times was allowed. No, it was tolerated for a while. There was no explicit command about intoxication at first. There was never a verse that said intoxication was fine. Even the verse that says that intoxicants have some benefit also said that the harm is more. This is a case of correcting a misunderstanding, not abrogating it.

A third misclassification Makki made (mentioned on the same page) is that it may happen that an abrogating command is mandated and the abrogated command is also mandated but we can choose between them! As an example, he cites 8:66/8:65. If we can choose, then the command is not abrogated because abrogation is annulment. With abrogation, we can only follow the abrogating command and we must NOT follow the abrogated command.

A fourth characterization Makki made (mentioned on page 49) which I see as inaccurate, is that Makki considers that abrogation and specification share in removal of an earlier ruling. I beg to differ. Specification does not remove an earlier ruling, it modifies it. Unless what Makki meant by يزيل is "to set aside", which is linguistically correct. But even then, the ruling that is set aside is permanently annulled when abrogated and therefore never set back. On the other hand, a ruling that has been set aside then specified is set back.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2013, 13:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 47, mentions something that Ibn Al-Jawzi's teacher has written. His name was Ali ibn Ubaydillah ibn As-Surri, better known as Ibn Az-Zaaghooni. He wrote that an example of a command that was changed from mandated to forbidden was the Qibla direction toward Jerusalem.

I don't know why many scholars thought that the direction of prayer toward Jerusalem at first was a mandate. Narrations clearly state that the Prophet (PBUH) prayed toward the Sacrosanct Mosque in Mecca until he migrated. That was not by a mandate from God. The Prophet simply did that on his own. He then noticed that the Ansaar, the people of Medina, have been praying toward Jerusalem. He approved that. He did not receive a mandate from God then either. God let that go on for 17 months, then he revealed the order (2:144) to always pray toward Mecca. That revelation was the first and only mandate from God of a Qibla direction.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2013, 15:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 61, tells of Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri's abrogation validation rules. He saw four of them:

  1. Full consensus of scholars, without one dissension. Well, that didn't happen because we know of some 30 scholars who rejected the abrogation doctrine.


  2. Two commands that cannot be complied with together and one of them came after the other. Well, that never happened because, as we exhaustively shown in this project, there was not one claim of abrogation where both rulings could not be complied with together. The perception that they couldn't is only that - a perception.

  3. An explicit statement that a command has been abrogated. That was never done by God or His Messenger (PBUH). It was only done by people. And the Sahaaba often used the word "naskh" in its full meaning, not abrogation only as has later become the convention.

  4. A clear prohibition after a clear mandate or vice versa. Well, that never happened in the Quran, but it did happen in the Sunna. The perception that it happened in the Quran is only that - a perception.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 20  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 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 28 Mar 2024, 13:12

All times are UTC

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