TheMostReadBook.org

I'm now reviewing this book by Muhammad Hamza "Studies of rulings and abrogation in the noble Quran",

I started looking at the book, and your characterization is correct. In our terminology, the book is about the dynamic phase of the religion.

However, it seems (not sure as I have just started reading it) that he is justifying abrogation (and also not calling it abrogation) with this approach. I have seen different shades of that approach, where people seem on the fence and are either minimizing or explaining away abrogation.

The key issue has never been abrogation in and of itself, but rather leaving abrogated verses that are not designated as such in the Quranic script. In some sense, Al-Bahiyy's approach is similar to arguing against al-badaa; he concedes the abrogation doctrine but defends the religion from possible attacks that are based on it.

I got the book. Only the second edition has the abrogation part (the author mentions that in the preface). Abrogation is discussed on pages 183-228.

Al-Nimr's approach is very similar to Hasballah, and cites Zeid a lot. He first argues that the 3 verses that are used to prove abrogation in the Quran (abrogation, substitution, and erasion verses) are about abrogating previous revelations. He cites Hasaballah's arguments but adds very nice points. He then says abrogation in the Quran is conceivable but subject to case-by-case verification, then gives an affirmative example of abrogating not abrogated which is a bit strange given his crisp logic up till that point. He then takes Suyuti's cases and Zeid's cases and settles on one abrgation case which is 4:15-16 being abrogated. Only this case!

I think this is another example of someone who is secretly anti-abrogation but didn't want to to spell out a hard conclusion that will alienate scholars, so he opted for a compromise. He has, however, some daring passages blaming previous scholars for the harm done by invalid abrogation claims.

Found an online copy and put it under albanna.pdf (publisher of this edition is دار الشروق not مكتبة الملك فهد). BTW, the author is the younger brother of Hasan Al-Banna, but he seems quite liberal.

I learned about an exegesis book that makes some very valuable points that we can use to support several of the arguments we're making. The book is,


God willing, I will enter the interesting passages in the proper threads.

We recently had an opportunity to review a modern book on abrogation,

Fatoohi, Louay, "Abrogation in the Quran and Islamic Law", Routledge Publisher, New York, NY, 2013. ISBN 978-0-415-63198-3. eBook ISBN13: 978-0-203-09620-8.

The book discusses the subject of abrogation at large, not focusing on abrogation in the Quran. Of 15 chapters, only two are focused on the abrogation doctrine, i.e., claims of abrogation of verses in the Quran. The two chapters do discuss the "big three", the famous claims and the "sword verse" claims and refute them all.

The author finishes the book with a chapter offering a suggestion of a renewed reading of the Quranic verses long thought to have been abrogated and a chapter concluding that abrogation in the Quran is a myth.

One observation that I did not like about the book is that the author made no attempt to authenticate any of the narrations he quoted, but nevertheless lamented that narrations, in his opinion, have influenced the scholars to claim abrogation of Quranic verses in order to reconcile them with the narrations.