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.  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2010, 08:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This abrogation case is the only unanimous abrogation claim among the pro-abrogation scholars

Burton attests to the historical importance of this claim to the 'proof' of the abrogation doctrine. He discusses the case on pages 189-190 of his book. Here are the highlights.

1. He mentions that one of the features of this case and other famous abrogation cases is the inclusion in the 'abrogating verse' of expressions like "God has lightened the burden on you" (in 8:66), "God has pardoned" (in 2:187), and "God has forgiven you" here in 58:13. These expressions are taken as evidence of change, hence abrogation.

2. He mentions that the basis of the abrogation claim is a narration of Aly, may God be pleased with him, that he was the first and last person to follow the command in 58:12 before 58:13 was revealed.

3. He mentions that the case is academic after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). He does not appeal to any kind of static/dynamic argument against abrogation, but he uses this academic angle to argue that it is just used to substantiate the abrogation doctrine by those who want it substantiated.

4. He argues that 58:13 could be taken as reprimanding the Muslims for not having done the practice instituted in 58:12 on their own initiative before, and shows that they would be forgiven for that lack of diligence if they uphold the prayers and the alms.

5. He emphasizes that the directive in 58:12 is a very mild directive, and that the crux of both 58:12 and 58:13 is to make it a good thing to present alms before an audience with the Prophet (PBUH), and also make it abundantly clear that this can be skipped and forgiven.

6. He makes the point that demolishing all claims of abrogation is needed to refute the doctrine, and that some of the cases are insisted upon not because of their merit or significance, but because they have been traditionally used to defend the doctrine.

Disclaimer: The facts that are not self evident here need to be taken with caution as the source is a non-Muslim writer.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2010, 17:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
He (Dr. Zaid) says that God, after removing an additional charity requirement in 58:12, and after removing an additional prayer requirement in 73:20, is reminding the Muslims of the basic requirement in these two areas that are still in place.

I respectfully disagree with Dr. Zaid. There is no additional charity requirement in 58:12. God has described it as صدقة (Sadaqa), which in Islamic law means voluntary charity. Mandatory charity is called Zakah.

One may argue that the Zakah verse, 9:60, calls the Zakah Sadaqa. There are many reasons for this. Zakah means purifier and grower, which Sadaqa also does. Sadaqa means proof of faith, which Zakah also does. All mandatory Zakah is Sadaqa, but not all Sadaqa is mandatory Zakah. Verse 9:60 is actually about whom all charity goes to, mandatory or voluntary. God does not specify in 9:60 how much to give or the fact that this is the required Zakah. We only know that 9:60 is about Zakah because the Prophet, peace be upon him, told us.

As for 73:20, there is no additional prayer requirement lifted from the believers. There was none in the first place, as the requirement was directed at the Prophet (PBUH) only.

What is interesting is that what Dr. Zayd thought was an abrogation of extra worship, could very well be understood as correction to those who thought so! In other words, staying up at night praying was never a mandate on Muslims and 73:20 was revealed to make that clear. And offering a charity before private audience with the Prophet (PBUH) was never a mandate and 58:13 was revealed to make that clear.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2010, 17:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I basically agree with most of what he (Dr. Zaid) said, except for that it constitutes abrogation :). The reason is the dynamic/static argument. The strength of this case makes that argument crucial, so we'd better pin it down and polish it as it may be the make-or-break for our thesis.

I mentioned before that I don't particularly see the static/dynamic argument as being a strong one to refute abrogation, because one can argue that what applied to the Prophet may be extrapolated to apply to any Muslim authority by analogy (Qiyaas).

While I still think so, the case of 58:12 is decisively an exception. That is because a private counsel with the Prophet, peace be upon him, may result in new verses of the Quran being revealed! That can never happen with any other Muslim authority. We know from Seera and Hadeeth that verses of the Quran were often revealed in response to comments or questions asked by people, Jews, polytheists or fellow Muslims. The stories of Chapter 18, for instance, were revealed after the Jews challenged the Prophet (PBUH) to tell them details of these stories which only they knew. The Quran has many verses that start with "They ask you...".

Thus, the charity recommendation in 58:12, and it was only a recommendation, is not carried over to Muslim scholars, for instance, though many Muslims do it anyway as a way to be closer to God.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 04:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
On page 198, towards the conclusion of his book, Burton identifies 58:12-13 as the one claim of abrogation of a verse in the text of the Quran "that may be conceded." This adds him to the unanimity about this case, and adds to the importance of our arriving at a solid refutation of the abrogation claim here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 06:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Applying our validation process to this case, we find that the case does not meet the following rules on the list,

0: Neither God nor His messenger have explicitly said that 58:13 abrogated 58:12. What 58:13 states is that God reprimands Muslims for not doing what He suggested they do in 58:12, but that He forgave that. Thus, the imperative in 58:12 was not a mandate but a recommendation. That fact that most Muslims did not comply and that the Prophet (PBUH) did not chastise them, confirms that it was not obligatory. Only mandates and prohibitions may be abrogated.

8: Verse 58:13 provides another option for those who cannot or would rather not offer the charity recommended in 58:12.

13: The two verses can easily be combined to make a consistent ruling,
"When you arrange for private counsel with the Prophet (PBUH), those of you who can afford it, it is highly recommended that you offer a charity. That would be purer for your heart. If you cannot afford it, or if you'd rather not do it, then at least establish prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His messenger."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 07:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
13: The two verses can easily be combined to make a consistent ruling,
"When you arrange for private counsel with the Prophet (PBUH), those of you who can afford it, it is highly recommended that you offer a charity. That would be purer for your heart. If you cannot afford it, or if you'd rather not do it, then at least establish prayer, pay the alms and obey God and His messenger."

I looked into the exact wording of the two verses, and I am starting to wonder where exactly does 58:13 remove the requirement that had been imposed in 58:12? The article used in 58:13 is "فإذ" which would translate to "so when" and is followed by past-tense verbs (the first verb "تفعلوا" is present-tense, but is negated by the past-tense article "لم" so it describes something in the past). This is not a conditional sentence, so the use of past tense means the past (rather than a generic tense that covers the present and future like the case of a conditional "إذا" for example). Am I correct from a purely linguistic point of view?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 16:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked into the exact wording of the two verses, and I am starting to wonder where exactly does 58:13 remove the requirement that had been imposed in 58:12? The article used in 58:13 is "فإذ" which would translate to "so when" and is followed by past-tense verbs (the first verb "تفعلوا" is present-tense, but is negated by the past-tense article "لم" so it describes something in the past). This is not a conditional sentence, so the use of past tense means the past (rather than a generic tense that covers the present and future like the case of a conditional "إذا" for example). Am I correct from a purely linguistic point of view?

Yes, you are. And I touched on that a bit in a previous post above. Verse 58:13 starts out with a reprimand from God, suggesting that God is disappointed that most Muslims did not comply with His suggestion. That by itself is proof that it was not an order. Then it proceeds to say, "Since you did not, and God has forgiven you...", i.e., stating that they did not comply but that He forgave them. That is further proof that it was not an order. If it wasn't an order then it wasn't a ruling! And if it wasn't a ruling, it cannot be abrogated.

It is that failure to abide by the "ruling" that some scholars have argued that it refutes any claim of abrogation, because they postulated that a ruling that was never in force is not really abrogated when another ruling modifying it comes along. I disagree. Abrogation is a change of a ruling, period, or a replacement of a verse. But neither happened here.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 17:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It is that failure to abide by the "ruling" that some scholars have argued that it refutes any claim of abrogation, because they postulated that a ruling that was never in force is not really abrogated when another ruling modifying it comes along. I disagree. Abrogation is a change of a ruling, period, or a replacement of a verse.

Totally agree with you on this. The "in force" criterion is an artificial one that is not accepted even by some pro-abrogation scholars.

Thanks for your comments. I am trying to avoid the argument that 58:12 is not actually a requirement, even though I think it is not, in order not to open up an argument that may be avoidable. Nobody can argue with the fact that God retains the power to forgive the disobedience of any of His commands, and that if He says that He forgave something, that's a statement of fact, not a ruling. Therefore, I am pursuing the line that 58:13 did not change the command in 58:12, whatever that was, because 58:13 doesn't say it did. It only states that the Muslims didn't obey and God forgave them, all in past tense. It doesn't say they are now exempt from whatever obligation 58:12 had dictated. Do you agree with this specific point or am I on shaky grounds here?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 18:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I am trying to avoid the argument that 58:12 is not actually a requirement, even though I think it is not, in order not to open up an argument that may be avoidable. Nobody can argue with the fact that God retains the power to forgive the disobedience of any of His commands, and that if He says that He forgave something, that's a statement of fact, not a ruling. Therefore, I am pursuing the line that 58:13 did not change the command in 58:12, whatever that was, because 58:13 doesn't say it did. It only states that the Muslims didn't obey and God forgave them, all in past tense. It doesn't say they are now exempt from whatever obligation 58:12 had dictated. Do you agree with this specific point or am I on shaky grounds here?

I certainly agree that this is a better argument. That is why I thought that our validation rule #8 applies. 58:13 offers an alternative to Muslims, not a replacement of the original "requirement." The alternative came in the imperative, "then establish prayer ...".

That said, one can argue that the new, or alternative command, came as a result of non-compliance, evidenced by the article إذ. That thought borders on البداء (mind change), which cannot possibly be. That is why I maintain that the imperative in 58:12 was never meant to be a ruling.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 01:16 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
one can argue that the new, or alternative command, came as a result of non-compliance, evidenced by the article إذ. That thought borders on البداء (mind change), which cannot possibly be. That is why I maintain that the imperative in 58:12 was never meant to be a ruling.

Let me separate the two issues to make sure both are addressed adequately. There is the approach, which is meritorious in its own right, that 58:12 does not prescribe a requirement. There is the other approach that I am testing here, and I would like it to be upheld or shot down.

This approach does not address whether 58:12 prescribes a requirement or a recommendation. That doesn't matter at all for the argument of this approach. The approach simply asserts that 58:13 does not change any prescription at all, whether it was a requirement, a recommendation, or otherwise, that 58:12 may have instituted. What 58:13 does, given its specific wording, is to inform us about forgiveness of past actions only. It doesn't promise forgiveness of the same offense in the future (which would arguably be tantamount to relief from an obligation).

Does this specific statement hold in your opinion?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 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, 18:17

All times are UTC

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