TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Scholars opinions about abrogation http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2497 |
Page 17 of 20 |
Author: | Linguistic [ 03 Jan 2015, 19:32 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 03 Jan 2015, 20:09 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 03 Jan 2015, 20:18 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
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." |
Author: | Linguistic [ 28 Jul 2017, 01:13 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Farghali, in his book النسخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 53-62, mentions several objections to the abrogation doctrine, without credit:
He cites the fact that hundreds of books have been written on the subject, the majority of which accepting the doctrine, is proof of the doctrine. He forgets that a majority of people may agree on a falsehood - for a variety of reasons. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 19 Aug 2017, 04:59 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Linguistic wrote: Muhammad Mahmood Nada writes in the introduction of his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, pages 6-7, that all types of abrogation did not make sense to him, but he hesitated to discuss it because "the elite exegetes and Imaams have taught it." That went by until he read the explanation, by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Madani in his book المجتمع الإسلامي كما تنظمه سورة النساء (Islamic society as Chapter 4 organizes it), of 4:15-16, and how he reconciled them with 24:2. Then he read Mufti Mahmood Shaltoot's book الإسلام عقيدة وشريعة (Islam is a theology and a way of life), which confirmed the reconciliation. Nada became convinced that the abrogation doctrine may not be valid and that got him to research the subject in detail. I got Al-Madani's book. He adopts Asfahani's view that 4:15-16 is about homosexuality, and his exposition is smooth (pages 172-175 in the 2016 edition published by the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs in Egypt). He also politely reprimands the majority for their labored attempts at interpreting these verses. The introduction of that book is excellent in its own right, and relevant to this project even if the subject matter there is quite different. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 19 Aug 2017, 05:14 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Pragmatic wrote: quotes Al-Nahhas (The Abrogating and Abrogated in the Noble Quran, page 22). My translation: Quote: It is not permitted for a Muslim who believes in God and the Last Day to say about something the Quran or the Sunna 'this is abrogated' except with certainty. What has the possibility of not being abrogation cannot be said to be abrogating or abrogated except with a a proof that mandates concession to it. I looked at the book by Al-Nahhas, and the above quote is not accurate. The first part "It is not permitted...except with certainty." is not there at all. Also the page number depends on which edition, but the quote is towards the end of the item discussing the second (abrogation-case) verse of Chapter 2 باب || ذكر الآية الثانية من هذه السورة just before the start of the the third (abrogation-case) verse of Chapter 2. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 20 Aug 2017, 03:21 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
I finally found the cases that Shah Waliullah Al-Dahlawi approves of. They are in his book "الفوز العظيم" (Al-fawz Al-Azeem) except that the most commonly available copy of the book (a translated version into Arabic, like all other Arabic versions) has skipped over the whole part. Other copies skipped over other parts, and the variability in the translation is significant. The five cases are two of the big three (58:12-13 and 8:65-66), the widow 2:234,240 (the latter abrogated by the former), the will 2:180 abrogated by 4:11 (with the "لا وصية" narration being clarifying only), and 33:50,52 (the latter abrogated by the former, which he approves of citing the widow verses as supporting example). This makes only the two above verses of the big three common between Al-Dahlawi and Zeid. I am surprised that Al-Dahlawi approved the widow case, although as you point out, Linguistic, it is not a crisp approval. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 02 Oct 2017, 22:10 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 32, makes two very interesting points:
The abrogation doctrine has to be the clumsiest doctrine in all of Islamic literature. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 03 Oct 2017, 22:11 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 33, says that the prevailing opinion of modern-day scholars regarding the abrogation doctrine is that it is invalid; that there are no abrogated verses in the Quran. He references, in a footnote, Al-Azhar Magazine, Part 3, pages 265-268, issued 1975. He also references Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy in his book منهج القرآن في تطوير المجتمع, published by دار الفكر in 1974. And he also refers to "Dr. Zayd's recommendation on page 849 of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, published by دار الوفاء للطباعه والنشر والتوزيع, Al-Mansoora, Egypt, 1987. Did I miss that? |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 04 Oct 2017, 06:49 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation |
Linguistic wrote: Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 33, says that the prevailing opinion of modern-day scholars regarding the abrogation doctrine is that it is invalid; that there are no abrogated verses in the Quran. He references, in a footnote, Al-Azhar Magazine, Part 3, pages 265-268, issued 1975. He also references Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy in his book منهج القرآن في تطوير المجتمع, published by دار الفكر in 1974. And he also refers to "Dr. Zayd's recommendation on page 849 of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, published by دار الوفاء للطباعه والنشر والتوزيع, Al-Mansoora, Egypt, 1987. Did I miss that? Zeid's recommendation is the one that the Supreme Council revise its previous opinion (which seems anti-abrogation) based on Zeid's findings that there are abrogated verses but are only few. Not sure why Afaana would support that, but perhaps he is clinging to the "few" part of the recommendation. |
Page 17 of 20 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |