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  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 14:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Dr. Muhammad Saalih `Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 41, makes a couple of good points:
  • Proving even one abrogation claim proves the abrogation doctrine. I concur and add that no scholar has done that conclusively.
  • Objecting to an abrogation claim does not necessarily mean the verse claimed abrogated isn't. I suppose what he means is that objecting to the argument used to refute an abrogation claim is not the same thing as rejecting the claim. I agree.

In his lectures about abrogation in 1402 A.H. to the Graduate School of Foundations of Religion College, he settled on the "Big Three", 8:66/8:65, 58:13/58:12 and 73:20/73:1-4.

He then mentions a few more which he labeled as famous: 24:2/4:15-16, 5:90/4:43, 2:185/2:184 and 2:234/2:240.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 14:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 16, mentions that Imam Muhammad Abu-Zahra, in his book مصادر الفقه الإسلامي, wrote:

لا ناسخ ولا منسوخ بل الأحكام جميعها متكاملة ثابتة

Translation: There is no abrogating nor abrogated. Rather all rulings complement each other and are fixed.

And on page 17, Dr. Mustafa mentions an exegesis "Tafseer Waseet" published in Egypt in whose introduction was written that the Quran has no abrogators nor abrogated. I wish he gave the author's name, because I found two books by that title, one by Dr. Wahba Az-Zuhayli (2001) and another by Imaam Muhammad Sayyid Tantaawi (1998).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 14:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih `Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 18-19, gives the evidence scholars used to prove that abrogation did occur. One of them is

He says it shows that prohibition replaced allowance, thus one ruling was set aside and another revealed.

But the verse clearly states a contingency, so it cannot be used as evidence of abrogation. It would be if there was no contingency for the new ruling. In fact, the ruling was reversed by Jesus (PBUH) contingent upon the Jews accepting him. That would be a reversal of their injustice which caused the ruling in 4:160.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 02:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Indeed, the force of the evidence is weak and the target is mighty.

Nice phrasing that may make it to the book verbatim.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 02:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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, 4:43. He said that the verse implied that being drunk outside prayer times was allowed

No such implication. The verse deals with a situation that may occur in reality as a result of disobedience. There are other examples like that in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 02:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Muhammad Saalih `Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 41, makes a couple of good points:
  • Proving even one abrogation claim proves the abrogation doctrine. I concur and add that no scholar has done that conclusively.
  • Objecting to an abrogation claim does not necessarily mean the verse claimed abrogated isn't. I suppose what he means is that objecting to the argument used to refute an abrogation claim is not the same thing as rejecting the claim. I agree.

In his lectures about abrogation in 1402 A.H. to the Graduate School of Foundations of Religion College, he settled on the "Big Three", 8:66/8:65, 58:13/58:12 and 73:20/73:1-4.

He then mentions a few more which he labeled as famous: 24:2/4:15-16, 5:90/4:43, 2:185/2:184 and 2:234/2:240.

This is an important post.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 02:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. M. Saalih `Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 18-19, gives the evidence scholars used to prove that abrogation did occur. One of them is 4:160. He says it shows that prohibition replaced allowance, thus one ruling was set aside and another revealed.

My view is that abrogation may have occurred but the abrogated object did not belong to the text of the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 13:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 19 in the footnotes, mentions his opinion that God has "abrogated" many creatures or caused them to be forgotten. As an example of a creature that was abrogated and replaced with a better creature, he gives the example of mammoth to elephant. And as an example of creatures that were caused to be forgotten for a long time, he gives the example of dinosaurs.

He mentions that in the context of explaining that the word "naskh", used in 2:106, is general and can apply to any sign of God, while the word "tabdeel" (substitution), mentioned in 16:101, is specific to scripture.

I agree and add that 2:106 may therefore be talking about any aspect of the word "naskh" applied to any sign of God. Thus, restricting it to only mean abrogation of verses of the Quran is unwarranted without additional proof.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 13:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Referencing Dr. Sha`baan M. Ismail's book نظرية النسخ في الشرائع السماوية, pages 155-170, Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 20, rejects the 2nd and 4th criteria offered by Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri for recognizing that abrogation has occurred. These criteria are:

  • Two commands that cannot be complied with together and one of them came after the other.
  • A clear prohibition after a clear mandate or vice versa.

His argument is that analysis and analogy (Qiyaas) cannot be used for such criterion, as that would conflate with abrogation what's not of it. He also qualifies Ibn Hazm's first criterion,

  • Full consensus of scholars, without one dissension.

by saying that consensus not based on a text cannot be used as such criterion as that would open the gate for abrogation by whim.

He concurs with Ibn Hazm's third criterion and asserts that it is the only way to tell that abrogation has occurred. That third criterion is,

  • An explicit statement that a command has been abrogated.

I couldn't agree more.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 20:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He mentions that in the context of explaining that the word "naskh", used in 2:106, is general and can apply to any sign of God, while the word "tabdeel" (substitution), mentioned in 16:101, is specific to scripture.

The context of 2:106 leaves little doubt that the subject is scripture.

Quote:
I agree and add that 2:106 may therefore be talking about any aspect of the word "naskh" applied to any sign of God. Thus, restricting it to only mean abrogation of verses of the Quran is unwarranted without additional proof.

The "cause it to be forgotten" part of 2:106 leaves little doubt that the meaning of naskh is abrogation (annulment).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  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 Dec 2017, 15:02

All times are UTC

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