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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This is a long post, but it carries a new point. I haven't re-read the thread as I write this, so it could be redundant with some of what has already been said, but here goes.

Actually, you touch on several points raised by the pro-abrogation scholars, namely:

I'll elaborate further below quotes from your post.

Pragmatic wrote:
At this point, the two cases that I am not 100% comfortable with their anti-abrogation arguments are this case (58:13/58:12) and another "big-3" case (8:66/8:65). The latter I am more comfortable with, and that leaves the former case as the critical one, which was also the only case Burton conceded as a possible abrogation case.

Interestingly, the case at hand was never high on my list of meritorious claims. Firstly because of the imperative in 58:12 is a recommendation and not a mandate, something to which most scholars agree, evidenced by the excusing epilogue. That is what I said right away in the OP.

Secondly, the word that starts 58:13 and caused scholars to think abrogation actually explains why 58:13 was revealed: To relieve the guilt that some pious Muslims felt which prevented them from seeking advice for legitimate issues they had. It is a point that you observed, Pragmatic, and, to me, it is the compelling refuting argument. Naskh means, among many semantics, correction of a misconception.

Pragmatic wrote:
Now let us take the case of a verse that applies only at the time of the Prophet, e.g., the command for people not to call for the Prophet shouting from outside. This verse is clearly not applicable (in the sense that the command therein does not obligate us to do anything),

Some scholars have argued that it is, by way of analogy (القياس). That is, Muslims should not be too familiar with their leader, especially if the leader does not like that. I get that sense from the event of people lingering around at the Prophet's hoping they may be invited to dinner! See,

The Prophet (PBUH) was simply too nice to tell them to stop this irritating behavior, so God told them!

As I mentioned in this post, I don't quite see the argument of static/dynamic phase as a good one for or against abrogation.

Pragmatic wrote:
Could a verse that is no longer applicable be "abrogated" by another verse?

I submit that there are no verses in the Quran that are no longer applicable. A verse of the Quran is applicable today to us in some way. This is an argument of the pro-abrogation scholars which I agree with. namely, that there is value enough in every verse of the Quran, even ones which are claimed abrogated, to keep it in the Quran. That is why these scholars claim abrogation of ruling but not of recitation.

I beg to differ with them on their conclusion of abrogation, but agree with them on their sentiment of verse applicability. Firstly, because, as we demonstrated in each case, there is no actual conflict to resolve and there are sensible arguments of refutation. Secondly, because God is wise enough and capable enough to effect His teachings without having to rescind any of His rulings.

Pragmatic wrote:
There is no question that there are commands that were valid at one point, then became invalid at a later point during the life of the Prophet (what we coined the dynamic phase).

Commands from the Prophet (PBUH), yes, but not commands from God. The Prophet (PBUH) changed some of his commands, and God changed some of the Prophet's commands. But God did not change any of His commands. What appears as a change is not, when one scrutinizes it. In fact, many scholars have agreed that the debate between scholars has largely been about semantics.

Pragmatic wrote:
What makes me think that this explanation may be valid is not the verses themselves, but the narration about Ali (RA). It is not possible (or at least highly labored) to dismiss the abrogation claim without raising authenticity issues about these narrations. This is probably 50% of the reason why this case is difficult to refute as an instance of abrogation.

This narration's authenticity is uncertain. The best rating it got was "sound but strange" from At-Tirmizhi. The man who narrated it from Ali, his name is Ali ibn `Alqama Al-Anbaari, was described by Al-Bukhaari as one whose narrating needs examining (في حديثه نظر). Al-Albaani rates it weak and lists it in his book ضعيف الترمذي ("the weak hadeeths in At-Tirmizhi").

The other version of Ali's narration, by way of Mujaahid, does not hint at abrogation at all, but rather is a bragging of sorts from Ali that he was the only one who complied with 58:12. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports it, as mentioned in this post, but I could not locate the narration anywhere.

Furthermore, narrations by Ali of the same event conflict with each other on what charity he offered, and how much time had passed between the revelation of 58:12 and the revelation of 58:13. And isn't it rather odd that Ali himself (RA) did not say out right that 58:12 was abrogated? The ones who said that came later and must have interpreted the narrations attributed to him as abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2013, 22:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Thank you for the elaborate commentary, which has a lot of substance. Three points:

Linguistic wrote:
I beg to differ with them on their conclusion of abrogation, but agree with them on their sentiment of verse applicability. Firstly, because, as we demonstrated in each case, there is no actual conflict to resolve and there are sensible arguments of refutation. Secondly, because God is wise enough and capable enough to effect His teachings without having to rescind any of His rulings.

While I agree with the no-abrogation view, I don't think the argument about God's wisdom as an explanation should be invoked. This is the counterpart of "God's ability" argument that the pro-abrogation folks invoke to support abrogation.

Linguistic wrote:
But God did not change any of His commands. What appears as a change is not, when one scrutinizes it.

The 50 prayers command is a counter example. I don't see any problem with changing commands, including changing commands between Christianity and Islam for example. The premise that we are advocating is that there is no change of commands within the Quran as it it was left for us by the Prophet (PBUH).

Linguistic wrote:
This narration's authenticity is uncertain. The best rating it got was "sound but strange" from At-Tirmizhi. The man who narrated it from Ali, his name is Ali ibn `Alqama Al-Anbaari, was described by Al-Bukhaari as one whose narrating needs examining (في حديثه نظر). Al-Albaani rates it weak and lists it in his book ضعيف الترمذي ("the weak hadeeths in At-Tirmizhi").

The other version of Ali's narration, by way of Mujaahid, does not hint at abrogation at all, but rather is a bragging of sorts from Ali that he was the only one who complied with 58:12. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports it, as mentioned in this post, but I could not locate the narration anywhere.

Furthermore, narrations by Ali of the same event conflict with each other on what charity he offered, and how much time had passed between the revelation of 58:12 and the revelation of 58:13. And isn't it rather odd that Ali himself (RA) did not say out right that 58:12 was abrogated? The ones who said that came later and must have interpreted the narrations attributed to him as abrogation.

This is great information that puts to rest my concerns about Ali's (RA) narration.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 18 Jul 2013, 14:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
While I agree with the no-abrogation view, I don't think the argument about God's wisdom as an explanation should be invoked. This is the counterpart of "God's ability" argument that the pro-abrogation folks invoke to support abrogation.

I agree that it should not be invoked as a primary argument, only as a rebuttal to the "God's ability" argument. It puts the burden of proof back on the abrogationists.

Linguistic wrote:
And isn't it rather odd that Ali himself (RA) did not say out right that 58:12 was abrogated?

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 8, reports Ali's narration with the words ثم نسخت (يريد آية نجوى الرسول)ـ (then it was abrogated, i.e., 58:12) at the end.

That addition is not in the narrations I checked!

Also, that narration, by way of Abu-`Ubayd, states that Ali (RA) consulted with the Prophet (PBUH) ten times, each time donating a Dirham (1/10 of a Dinar) until the Dinar Ali had spared was gone.

So, the narrations also conflict with each other about how many times Ali (RA) donated.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 18:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la is very terse in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ but in this claim he was extra terse! He says on page 177 that "exegetes said that 58:12 was abrogated by 58:13."

That's it! He doesn't say if he agrees. He doesn't name those exegetes. It's as if he didn't want to touch this claim with a ten-foot pole.

In the footnotes, Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris mentions that Qataada and Mujaahid both said that 58:12 lasted only an hour! Can someone reasonably explain why God would issue a command that is valid only for one hour, but still keep it in His everlasting scripture?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12
PostPosted: 11 Jul 2014, 14:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghazali's view

This abrogation claim is one of the 'big 3' that Al-Ghazali addressed in his book (page 211). He singled them out as the cases where the wording of the verse may be construed as declaring that abrogation has taken place. He is against this abrogation claim, but his explanation is technical and brief, and I could not understand it.

I read what he said. Basically, he's saying that the lifting of the command in 58:12 by 58:13 is not explicit. That makes the abrogation view a matter of perception. Well, that is what all abrogation claims are in fact.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 23:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In discussing whether abrogation can be without a replacement, Farghali, in his book النسخ بين الإثبات والنفي supports this claim and cites something that Al-Baydhaawi wrote in his book الإبهاج في شرح المنهاج and presented by Al-Subki brothers. He said that private consultation with the Prophet, PBUH, was first done without an offering of a charity, then a charity was mandated by 58:12 then the mandate was removed by 58:13. He was trying to explain what Ash-Shaafi`i said in his book الرسالة that "no mandate is abrogated excpet another mandate takes its place."

But 58:12 clearly and unambiguously stated that its command was not a mandate but a good thing to do for those who can afford it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2020, 19:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, page 172, Al-Ghaali quotes Zayd Ibn Aslam narrating the circumstances of revelation of 58:12. Ibn Aslam pointed out that in order to curb the time wasters, God first revealed,

But the time-wasters did not stop doing it, so God revealed 58:12 which succeeded in stopping them. This means, as Al-Asfahaani concluded, that 58:12 had a purpose, which it achieved, and therefore 58:13 declared an end to it. Ar-Raazi liked that.

But the question is whether such a situation constitutes an abrogation. I say it doesn't, but Pragmatic, you feel it does, don't you?

Al-Ghaali mentions the opinion, offered by many, such as Ar-Raazi, that the command in 58:12 is a recommendation and not a mandate. He draws attention to the clause ذلك خير لكم وأطهر (This is better for you and more purifying). Ash-Shawakaani agrees because "limiting a command by saying that following it is better than not following it means that the command is not a mandate but a recommendation."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2020, 19:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 381, Judge Ibn-Al`Arabi rejected this claim on the basis of rating of the narrations attributed to Ali (RA) which claimants of abrogation have cited for evidence. He used rather strong words to describe the frailty of these narration and abrogation arguments,
وهذا مما لم يصح سنده وفي ذلك آثار لا معنى لذكرها لضعفها

Translation: And that (a narration attributed to Ali, RA) is among those who attribution chain has been found inauthentic. And in that are quotes that are not worthy of mentioning for their weakness.

He added,
وغير ذلك من الأقوال باطلة وما فيها من الروايات ضعيفة كقولهم: ٳنها نسختها آية الزكاة وقولهم: ٳن المسلمين علموا بها فشق عليهم فلا فائدة في الاشتغال بها ولا بأمثالها

Translation: And other quotes are false and the narrations about them are weak, such as saying that it was abrogated by the Zakah verse and saying that Muslims knew of it and found it hard - there is not value in spending time on that or its like.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 58:13 abrogate 58:12?
PostPosted: 12 Jun 2021, 15:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Fatoohi, in his book "Abrogation in the Quran and Islamic Law", p.95-97, refutes this claim by making a very interesting point. He says that the phrase "وتاب الله عليكم", mentioned in verse 58:13, means that God pardoned the Muslims who did not comply with his command but that does not amount to annullment of the command. In other words, the jump from pardoning an infraction to annullment of a command is a leap of logic, a non-sequitor. He uses the same argument to refute the 73:20/73:1-4 claim.

It is of particular interest to investigate the linguistic meanings of the verb تاب. None of the classic dictionaries mention that the word may mean to ease a requirement. In particular, Al-Damghani, in his book "الوجوه والنظائر لألفاظ كتاب الله العزيز" identified three aspects of the verb: to regret, to let pass and to retreat. None of these aspects may be interpreted to mean to ease.

He says that there is no evidence that the command was annulled except the narration attributed to Ali (RA). He laments that scholars found it necessary to reconcile narrations with Quranic verses and that without that narration they would probably have not thought that verses 58:13 abrogated 58:12.

I have to say that there is evidence that the command was not annulled either. The narrations are inauthentic. That is a major flaw in Fatoohi's book IMHO; that he does not address authentication of any narration he refers to. On page 1, he quotes the Doomed-And-Dooming story without one word about its inauthenticity.

_________________
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.  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 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, 16:59

All times are UTC

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