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





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2010, 21:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This one is interesting. Scholars have said that 2:284 states that we will be punished by what we think! The scholars said that this was overturned later by 2:286 which makes it clear that upon us only is what we earn. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


What is the meaning of 2:284? Does it really mean that what we think can be a punishable sin? It sure sounds like it. Exegesis books have mentioned that most scholars agree it was abrogated, after Muslims found it too hard and begged the prophet for relief. Ibn Jareer, however, reported that it wasn't abrogated according to Mujaahid and Ad-Dhahhaak:


روى ابن جرير عن مجاهد والضحاك أنه قال: هي محكمة لم تنسخ، واختار ابن جرير ذلك واحتج على أنه لايلزم من المحاسبة المعاقبة، وأنه تعالى قد يحاسب فيغفر وقد يحاسب فيعاقب. وفي الصحيحين روى قتادة عن صفوان بن محرز قال: بينما نحن نطوف بالبيت مع عبد الله بن عمر وهو يطوف إذ عرض له رجل فقال: ياابن عمر، ماسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول في النجوى؟ قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: يدنو المؤمن من ربه عز وجل حتى يضع عليه كتفه فيقرره بذنوبه فيقول له: هل تعرف كذا؟ فيقول: رب أعرف مرتين، حتى إذا بلغ به ماشاء الله أن يبلغ، قال: فإني سترتها عليك في الدنيا وإني أغفرها لك اليوم، قال: فيعطى صحيفة حسناته أو كتابه بيمينه، وأما الكفار والمنافقون فينادى بهم على رؤوس الأشهاد "هؤلاء الذين كذبوا على ربهم ألا لعنة الله على الظالمين"
اهـ


There are many authentic hadeeths too that make it clear that God's law has always been not to punish thoughts until they turn into words or deeds. Since 2:286 does not contain a command, it cannot abrogate anything. It is clear to me that 2:286 explains 2:284. In other words, it defines the scope of thoughts that God will bring into question, thoughts which are within our capacity to control but did not. I see it as a prescription for a prayer that we can say when such thoughts invade our minds.

I see 2:284 as another verse where God asserts His will, just like in 2:106. Nobody can limit God's will to do as He pleases. It is out of His grace, however, that He does forgive, pardon, overlook and lets unnoticed many of His worshipers encroachments and infractions. May God always look down on us with grace.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 01:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Interesting case. IMHO, the abrogation question itself is easy to refute. Since even if God holds us accountable for our thoughts, that is not negated by the fact the He holds us accountable for our deeds. It is conceivable that He holds us accountable for both. The interesting question is whether He indeed holds us accountable for our thoughts. Although this is not an abrogation question, let me share my thoughts on this.

There is a hadith that states "None of you is a believer until he would want for his brother what he wants for himself." There is no action here. The fact of the matter is that we still have control over negative feelings that we harbor. We can try to mitigate those feelings or we can let them take over. IMHO, when 2:284 says "what is within yourselves", it covers something that we have control over.

I also would like to make a point about a fundamental difference between how people are held accountable by other people versus how they are held accountable by God. It is a worldly consensus that people are accountable only for their actions and not for their thoughts. By the same token, people are also rewarded according to their actions rather than their thoughts or intentions (at work for example). I think the main reason for that is our inability to determine someone else's thoughts. If my subordinate at work messes up, I cannot let it go by assuming he was trying to do good, because I really don't know if he was trying to do good. If I allow this excuse, my subordinate may "game the system" since he knows that I cannot tell what his thoughts and intentions are. However, God knows exactly what our thoughts and intentions are (and that may be the crux of 2:284), and He is in the unique position of being able to hold us accountable to them, and to reward us and punish us according to our intentions.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2010, 02:28 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Scholars have said that 2:284 states that we will be punished by what we think! The scholars said that this was overturned later by 2:286 which makes it clear that upon us only is what we earn.

Just occurred to me that the foremost thing we are accountable for is not an action. It is the belief in God, which is definitely "within ourselves" as 2:284 puts it. I wonder what the scholars were thinking when they said that this aspect of 2:284 was overturned.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2010, 03:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Just occurred to me that the foremost thing we are accountable for is not an action. It is the belief in God, which is definitely "within ourselves" as 2:284 puts it. I wonder what the scholars were thinking when they said that this aspect of 2:284 was overturned.

In today's sermon, I was reminded of this verse,

That confirms 2:284 in that what we keep in our hearts is something we will be questioned about and like 2:284, 17:36 does not say there will necessarily be a punishment for that.

It also gives one pause that research about abrogation may be guess work. Those who are for it and those who are against it alike.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2010, 06:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
That confirms 2:284

Careful. They might abrogate it as well....

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ali,
Ibn Abbaas (in one report according to Ibn Salaam and An-Nahhaas),
Mujaahid and Ash-Sha`bi (in one report),
Qataada,
`Aa'isha (in one report),
Ibn Seereen, `Ataa', As-Suddi and Muqaatil,
Ibn Umar (according to Al-Bukhaari),
Abu-Hurayra (reported by Muslim, Ahmad and Abu-Daawood),
Ibn Mas`ood (according to Ibn Salaam and Ibn Al-Jawzi),
Al-Hasan (according to Ibn Salaam),
Ibn Zayd and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, said Dr. Zayd),
The majority, according to Ibn Katheer,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
As-Suyooti,
Az-Zurqaani (in one report),
Dr. Manna` Al-Qattaan.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (in two other reports according to Ibn Salaam, At-Tabari, An-Nahhaas and Ibn Al-Jawzi),
`Aa'isha (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi; she said the penalty is depression in this life),
Ibn Mas`ood (quoted by Makki),
Ikrima, and Ash-Sha`bi (in another report),
Mujaahid (in another report), Ad-Dhahhaak, and Ibn Jareer (At-Tabari),
Muqsim ibn Bujra (who narrated Ibn Abbaas's interpretation of testimony, said Shu`la),
Qays ibn Abi-Haazim, Ar-Rabee`, Al-Hasan (according to At-Tabari),
Ahmad ibn Hanbal,
Al-Bukhaari,
Az-Zamakhshari,
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Al-Qurtubi (according to Dr. Faaris),
Ibn Al-Anbaari and An-Nahhaas (who said that the verse is statement of fact),
Makki (who liked Ibn Mas`ood's interpretation, said Dr. Faaris),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Al-Asfahaani,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Aloosi (according to Nada),
Ibn `Atiyya,
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi and Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood (according to Haani Taahir),
Imaam Abun-Nasr (according to Al-Areedh),
Shah Waluillah Dehlvi,
Az-Zurqaani (in a direct quote from his book مناهل العرفان, volume 2, page 262, per `Ataaya),
Muhammad Abduh,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. N. A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya,
Haani Taahir,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2010, 08:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Believe it or not, there is a claim that 2:286 itself is abrogated. Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 411-412 in volume 1 of his book. He also mentions that 2:286 was claimed to abrogate other verses, but he doesn't specify them (at least not in this section).

The claimed abrogating verse is 2:185 (the part that says "God intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship"),


and Zaid brushes off the abrogation claim as incompetent.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 03:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, reports what Al-Bukhaari reported about Ibn Umar thinking that 2:284 was abrogated by 2:286. Al-Bukhaari was surprised by that thought and said, "Even though the statement in 2:286 is a specification of the general statement in 2:284 and its ruling has not been abrogated." Al-Areedh concludes that the Sahaaba understood specification to be a sort of "naskh", thus "naskh" is not limited to abrogation. He says that on page 288.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 04:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, reports what Al-Bukhaari reported about Ibn Umar thinking that 2:284 was abrogated by 2:286. Al-Bukhaari was surprised by that thought and said, "Even though the statement in 2:286 is a specification of the general statement in 2:284 and its ruling has not been abrogated." Al-Areedh concludes that the Sahaaba understood specification to be a sort of "naskh", thus "naskh" is not limited to abrogation. He says that on page 288.

That is important to note when we discuss the Sahaba narrations as it is one more statement from a pro-abrogation scholar qualifying what the Sahaba said.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 06:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 95-96, rejects this claim by citing several opinions of scholars,
  • Az-Zamakhshari in his exegesis says that thoughts are uncontrollable and therefore they are not part of one's capacity وسعها. He explains that 2:284 states that God will forgive bad thoughts which do not materialize and punish those that do.
  • Al-Qurtubi quotes Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Ikrima and Ash-Sha`bi saying that 2:284 is about required testimony.
  • At-Tabari mentions that some scholars opined that believers are forgiven their bad thoughts that do not materialize, but unbelievers will be punished for their bad thought even if they have not materialized. He says that something like that was falsely attributed to Ibn Abbaas.
  • At-Tabari, in addition, rejects the claim on the basis that the two verses are declarative.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi's point is that 2:284 was a test of compliance and when Muslims accepted, God revealed the ease in 2:286. To him, that's abrogation. Al-Andalusi proves his point by quoting a hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, saying to Muslims, "Do not say as the Jews did: We hear and we disobey, but say: We hear and obey."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 06 Dec 2019, 23:22

All times are UTC

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