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  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 19:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 116, discusses the abrogation cases that Makki studied and presented in his book الإيضاح لناسخ القرآن ومنسوخه. His conclusion is that Makki approved only 6 abrogation claims. The rest of the cases Makki studied were cases of specification/exception (about 20 cases), cases of statements of fact (another twenty), cases of promises/threats, cases of abrogating pre-Islamic practices (another twenty or so) and over 30 cases where he reconciled the apparent conflict.

This is significant because all other references to Makki's studies imply that he approved over 60 claims of abrogation. So, what we have here is scholar disagreements about what other scholars have actually said!

I intend, God willing, to read Makki's book and see for myself if Al-Jabri was right in his analysis about what Makki wrote.

Al-Jabri then quickly dismisses one of the claims which he said Makki confidently approved: 60:9/60:8, on the basis of contingency. He said that Makki acknowledged the contingency but nevertheless ruled it an abrogation.

This shows, if Al-Jabri is right, that Makki disagreed about what constituted abrogation, yet he still considered some factors a valid abrogation when they really are not, such as contingency. The other five claims Makki approved, according to Al-Jabri, were the "Big Three", the Qibla change-over claim (2:115/2:144) and the blanket claim about the Zakah verse, 9:60.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 20:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Al-Jabri makes a very interesting logical point in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 126. He quotes Judge Abu-Bakr from his book الانتصار, as quoted by As-Suyooti in his book الإتقان في علوم القرآن, in which he said that it is not permitted for a singular narration to abrogate what he been ubiquitously narrated, i.e., narrations cannot abrogate verses. He then extrapolates by saying that reports of abrogation conveyed by singletons cannot be accepted as evidence for abrogation of verse either! Great point.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 20:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 129-130, tells of something that Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy said on the phone to Al-Jabri's publisher. Al-Bahiyy commented on his exegesis تفسير سورة الكهف, page 17, where he explained this verse,

that the clause لا مبدل لكلماته (There is none substituting His Words), make it clear to him that no words of the Quran may be changed or abrogated and "puts the issue of abrogation in the Quran in the position of review and re-examination of what has been said about abrogation."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17


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 26 Jun 2017, 15:36

All times are UTC

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