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.  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 01:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, agrees with the rationale I presented here and rejects that 3:102 was abrogated. He writes that God has immediately explained what He meant by حق تقاته ("as he ought to be watched out for") by following it with the words "do not die except as Muslims!" He says that 64:16 is meant to curb excessiveness in religiosity, such as monastery life.

In his discussion, he refers to some very interesting quotes of prominent scholars. He quotes Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas saying,
معنى قول الأولين نسخت هذه الآية، أي نزلت بنسخها، وهما واحد، وإلا فهذا لا يجوز أن تنسخ، لأن الناسخ هو المخالف للمنسوخ من جميع جهاته، الرافع له المزيل حكمه، فهو في الحقيقة من بيان المبهم وتفسيره، وليس من الناسخ في شيئ، لأن الآية الأولى نص مبهم، والثانية نص مفسر، على معنى واحد، فلا تعارض بينهما ولا منافاة

Translation: The meaning of the former scholars when they said this verse "abrogated" the other verse is that it copied it. They are the same thing. There can be no abrogation here, because the abrogating is that which differs with the abrogated in every aspect, lifting it and removing its ruling. In fact, this is an elaboration of something vague. The first verse is vague and the second elaborates it with the same meaning. There is no contradiction between them nor negation.

Ah, how I wish the scholars followed those guidelines before they made their abrogation claims.

Another interesting angle Al-Areedh presented was a quote from Abul-Hasan Ash-Shaazhuliyy, who has been honored by his peers with the special title العارف بالله (The Knowledgeable of God). He said that 3:102 dealt with faith and monotheism while 64:16 dealt with practice and good works. That is because 3:102 follows with "Do not die except as Muslims" while 64:16 follows with "Listen and obey and spend, that is better for you."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 02:28 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He writes that God has immediately explained what He meant by حق تقاته ("as he ought to be watched out for") by following it with the words "do not die except as Muslims!" He says that 64:16 is meant to curb excessiveness in religiosity, such as monastery life.
This fits the notion of the "true way He should be feared" that was discussed here in a complementary way. We focussed on avoiding the ways other religions fear God in a less strict way, but it also applies for going the other extreme.

Linguistic wrote:
Another interesting angle Al-Areedh presented was a quote from Abul-Hasan Ash-Shaazhuliyy, who has been honored by his peers with the special title العارف بالله (The Knowledgeable of God). He said that 3:102 dealt with faith and monotheism while 64:16 dealt with practice and good works. That is because 3:102 follows with "Do not die except as Muslims" while 64:16 follows with "Listen and obey and spend, that is better for you."
This is an interesting and novel angle.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 11 May 2010, 22:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The question to ask then to determine whether there is abrogation here is this: Is watching out for God as best we could the same as watching out for God as He ought to be watched out for? I say yes! That's because God tells us that He never mandates anything that is beyond our capacity

On page 253 of his book, Muhammad Al-Khodari agrees with you and says that the way God should be feared is indeed whatever is the most we can do.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010, 15:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 385-411, discusses the notion of openness of text in the Quran and how that is significant and has been confused by many scholars as cause for abrogation. One of the examples he gives is this claim.

He shows that 3:102 provides a default framework of what constitutes proper piety. It sets a principle and tenet of faith. While it is in the form of a command, it does not really specify how the command may be obeyed. It lets the believer work that out on his own at first! Some Muslims, such as the Prophet, peace be upon him, read it to mean "as best you could" because that is what 2:286 says. He clearly understood that the purpose of 3:102 is to entice believers to work hard on their piety, not assume that they've done what is required of them that should be enough. Muslims should not over-estimate their piety.

Some Muslims, however, such as Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, took it hard! He made the assumption that there is no upper limit on that hard work and therefore it cannot be done! He took the other extreme: he underestimated his piety. Verse 64:16 came to correct such interpretation, not to abrogate the general framework of 3:102.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 16:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Sheikh Ash-Sha`raawi provided an interesting angle about this abrogation claim on pages 511-512 of تفسير الشعراوي من الآية 106 الى الآية 115 من سورة البقرة. He mentions a clever argument that challenges abrogation based on the observation that 64:16 is not "better or similar" when compared to 3:102, since 64:16 asks us to "fear God as much as we can" while 3:102 asks us to "fear God as He should be feared" which sounds like a better thing to do. He counters that by an argument that I find a bit labored, but is nonetheless equally clever. He says that more people will be able to do the lesser requirement, so the cumulative good is better in that case.

He also quotes 8:66/8:65 as a supporting example. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byt97oTA7Ow. His point, if I understood it correctly, is that there is a high standard that God likes to see believers commit to, but that He does not impose it. That high standard is what He mentions in 8:65 and 3:102. What Muslims are required to do, however, is easier, such as in 8:66 and 64:16. In other words, both are rewarded, but those committed to the higher standard are rewarded more.

I find that a proper argument and as he argues it, it is clearly not an abrogation, since the two verses talk about two different things.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 06:07 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
3:100 and 3:101 are warning us not to obey the people of the book, and that we have God's Prophet and His verses to rely on. The conclusion comes in 3:102 that we should "fear God as He should be feared and not die except as Muslims." IMHO, given this strong context, "the way He should be feared" means the Islamic way, not the way of the people of the book who in their own way are supposedly fearing God as well. In fact, a more accurate linguistic translation of 3:102 is "fear God the true way He should be feared" which is the Islamic way.

I looked up other verses where a similar expression to the one in 3:102 is used in the Quran to see which ones lend themselves to the interpretation "in a proper way" (the quoted interpretation of 3:102) versus the interpretation "in a full way" (the interpretaion of 3:102 under the abrogation claim). There are 6 such verses (not counting 3:102), and 4 of them lend themselves to the interpretation "in a proper way" while 2 lend themselves to the interpretation "in a full way" (IMHO, with straightforward reasoning). Here are the 4 verses of the first group:






and here are the 2 verses of the second group:



_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 20:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
In a private communication, Linguistic commented on the last post that the linguistic meaning of the word "حق" corresponds to "the fixed way. The way that is not to be altered, shaken, or deviated from." This is important for the above interpretation since the generic nature of the English word "true" may make it less compelling in conveying the contrast in meaning with the other interpretation (the one that supports the abrogation claim).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2013, 13:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa's refutation of this claim, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 51, is that 64:16 soecifies the generality in 3;102. That is, it elaborates on what it means, for, he says, God does not burden a soul more that it can carry, per 2:286.

I certainly agree.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 20:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 121, rejects this claim on two bases,
  1. Abrogation can only be total. He says that God did not say in 64:16 that we no longer have to observe Him as He ought to be observed and no longer have to die as Muslims.
  2. Verse 3:102 is brief (مجمل), and verse 64:16 explained it. Indeed.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris says in the footnotes on the same page that Makki has stated that the majority rejected this claim, but Qataada, As-Suddi and Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas accepted it.

Faaris also quotes Abu-Ubayd saying that Ibn Abbass rejected this claim and so did An-Nahhaas, but Al-Qurtubi accepted it. In fact, Al-Qurtubi said in his exegesis that 3:102 was the only abrogated verse in Chapter 3.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 64:16 abrogate 3:102?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dehlvi dismisses this claim, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 61-62. He says that 3:102 is referring to matters of faith, while 64:16 is referring to matters of practice. He gives examples of matters of practice: if you can't pray standing, you may pray sitting; if you can't find water for ablusion, you may rub your face and hands on sand or rock, etc.

He says that this understanding of 3:102 is obvious from its epilogue, which says, "and do not die except as Muslims." Great point.

_________________
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.  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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, 15:44

All times are UTC

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