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 Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2010, 18:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri makes a number of excellent points in his refutation of this claim on pages 138-140 of his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟,

  1. Some have claimed that the abrogating is the hadeeth,

    "Whoever was about to do a good deed but did not do it, it will be registered for him with God as a good deed...And whoever was about to do a bad deed but did not do it, it will not be registered for him with God as a bad deed." Reported by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu-Daawood and Ibn Hanbal.

    Al-Jabri argues that the hadeeth tells what will happen but the verse does not! Accounting of thoughts precedes rewarding or punishing them. That is, the hadeeth elaborates on the verse: It defines how God accounts for thoughts. Graciously!

  2. Al-Jabri then asks the logical question: Since God is gracious and will let pass bad thoughts that do not materialize, why then does He account them in the first place? Al-Jabri's answer is that a believer's realization that God will account his thoughts, will lead him to cease having them! It's when a person persistently thinks bad thoughts that they eventually materialize into action. It's what the law called premeditated. A believer, when he thinks a bad thought, is more likely then to recognize that the bad thought is from Satan, and thus will rush to seek refuge in God. This clears up his unconscious and leaves more room for good thoughts :)

  3. This is exactly why God has differentiated between repentance of one who errs out of ignorance and quickly repents (4:17) and one who repents only when he can no longer sin, such as when he is dying! (4:18). Al-Jabri refers to Ibn Salaama's claim that 4:18 abrogated 4:17 and calls it amazing. He says that the majority of exegetes have rejected that claim. The technical term used is قبول توبة غير المسوف (acceptance of the repentance of the non-procrastinator) and عدم رجاء قبول توبة المسوف (unlikelihood of accepting the repentance of the procrastinator).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2010, 15:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

How about if we categorize some claims as "Claims that sound legitimate"? That is, at first blush, one would believe them, but with little scrutiny, or application of validation rules, one can quickly see they are invalid.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2010, 16:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
How about if we categorize some claims as "Claims that sound legitimate"? That is, at first blush, one would believe them, but with little scrutiny, or application of validation rules, one can quickly see they are invalid.

Excellent idea!!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2010, 19:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
A point occurred to me as I was reading the analysis of this abrogation claim. The preposition used in 2:284 is "ب" not "على" as the verse says "يحاسبكم به الله" not "يحاسبكم عليه الله".

It occurred to me this morning to ask, "why is it that everybody interpreted this verse negatively? i.e., why didn't anybody ask what happens to us if we think good thoughts?" The answer came quickly, by noticing the subsequent sentence, "so, He forgives whomever He wills and torments whomever He wills." So, the context is indeed about bad thoughts. God forgives those who do not turn them into action, but torments those who do. That is the accounting God talks about in 2:284.

That said, the question itself merits an answer. And the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave the answer when he said, "Whoever is about to make a good deed but doesn't, it is written for him as a good deed, and whoever is about to sin but doesn't, it is written for him as a good deed!" Thus, God counts for us our good thoughts as good deeds, and stopping short of sin as a good deed also! Thank God for His Grace. It stands to reason, therefore, to conclude that only bad thoughts that materialize are the ones that are accountable as sins.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 16:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In a Friday sermon a little while ago, the preacher mentioned this case in the context of testing of faith. He quoted a hadith, narrated by Abu-Hurayra and reported by Muslim, in which he tells the reaction of Muslims right after 2:284 was revealed. He says that Muslims found the verse burdensome. The Prophet (PBUH) said to them, "Are you going to do like those before you and say to God, 'We hear but we disobey!'? Nay, say, 'We hear and we obey.'" They did and 2:2:285-286 were then revealed. Indeed, 2:285 mentions the words the faithful said, "We hear and we obey."

The preacher wanted to emphasize a Muslim's obligation to surrender to God's will no matter what it sounds like. It is only then that the wisdom of it is revealed to him. Thus, the reason 2:284 was revealed, in the view of the preacher, was to test the compliance of Muslims. When they complied, 2:286 was revealed to ease the burden. Interestingly, Abu-Hurayra uses the word Naskh in that narration.

That is a worthy point to make, and it has precedent in the sacrifice test given to Abraham (PBUH) and the initial command of 50 prayers a day given to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). IMHO, this is not abrogation. It is more like a lesson to learn. 2:284-2:286 are one teaching unit. A test was given then the correct answer was told. 2:284 is not a ruling that was later abrogated; it is a prerogative of God which He may or may not use at anytime on anybody. When a Muslim accepts that without question, he may find assurance in the fact that "God does not charge a soul but what is in its capacity" (2:286) and that the way to escape a possible prosecution for evil thoughts is to say the prayer in 2:286.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 05:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In a Friday sermon a little while ago, the preacher mentioned this case in the context of testing of faith. He quoted a hadith, narrated by Abu-Hurayra and reported by Muslim, in which he tells the reaction of Muslims right after 2:284 was revealed. He says that Muslims found the verse burdensome. The Prophet (PBUH) said to them, "Are you going to do like those before you and say to God, 'We hear but we disobey!'? Nay, say, 'We hear and we obey.'" They did and 2:2:285-286 were then revealed. Indeed, 2:285 mentions the words the faithful said, "We hear and we obey."

The preacher wanted to emphasize a Muslim's obligation to surrender to God's will no matter what it sounds like. It is only then that the wisdom of it is revealed to him. Thus, the reason 2:284 was revealed, in the view of the preacher, was to test the compliance of Muslims. When they complied, 2:286 was revealed to ease the burden. Interestingly, Abu-Hurayra uses the word Naskh in that narration.

That is a worthy point to make, and it has precedent in the sacrifice test given to Abraham (PBUH) and the initial command of 50 prayers a day given to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). IMHO, this is not abrogation. It is more like a lesson to learn. 2:284-2:286 are one teaching unit. A test was given then the correct answer was told. 2:284 is not a ruling that was later abrogated; it is a prerogative of God which He may or may not use at anytime on anybody. When a Muslim accepts that without question, he may find assurance in the fact that "God does not charge a soul but what is in its capacity" (2:286) and that the way to escape a possible prosecution for evil thoughts is to say the prayer in 2:286.

This is important as these details need to be addressed when we talk about this case. However, both 2:284 and the "abrogating" part in 2:286 are statments of facts, not commands. I feel that 2:284 is talking about the intention (both good and bad since the action is "يحاسبكم به" not "يحاسبكم عليه"), but the narration you quote is specific enough that we need to address it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2013, 13:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
A point occurred to me as I was reading the analysis of this abrogation claim. The preposition used in 2:284 is "ب" not "على" as the verse says "يحاسبكم به الله" not "يحاسبكم عليه الله". This is the same preposition used in the well known hadeeth "إنما الأعمال بالنيات". In both cases, the statement being made is that we are accountable according to our intentions, rather than for our intentions. In other words, it is a tangible action that we would be accountable for, but how we are accountable depends on what was in our heart when we acted.

This is just another angle for refuting the abrogation claim. It remains very compelling that faith, the foremost thing we are accountable for, is inside our heart even if we never act upon it one way or another.

This is the refutation argument offered by Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 50-51. He says that 2:284 establishes that it is the intention of a person that is judged! A person may do a good deed despite intending a sin! Will he be rewarded for it? 2:284 says no.

BTW, the hadeeth you quoted is the most famous hadeeth, narrated by Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) and reported and rated authentic by Al-Bukhaari. In fact, it is the first hadeeth he reports in his compilation book.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 00:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
A relevant post: viewtopic.php?t=2583&p=7551#p7551

Quote:
People may perceive a contradiction between the most famous hadeeth "إنما الأعمال بالنيّات ، وإنما لكل امريء مانوى" and this verses


It is a subtle point. Reasoning about what to do is followed by a resolve to do something, followed by implementing it or failing to implement it for reasons out of our control. IMHO, the verses address the reasoning part, for which we should follow the guidelines dictated by the religion. If we don't do that, we may think we are doing the right thing but we are in fact responsible for what happens because we didn't follow the guidelines regardless of our "intentions." The hadeeth, on the other hand, addresses the post-reasoning phase. You already decided to do X in order to achieve Y. Whether you succeed or not, you are accountable for X and Y.

Since both the reasoning and the resolve parts occur in our hearts and minds without action (yet), this may shed light on another abrogation case:



_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:286 abrogate 2:284?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, pages 61-62, dismisses this claim as a specification of a generality. He says that what 2:284 is referring to is the true content of the heart: faith or hypocrisy, whereas 2:286 clarifies that casual thoughts which occur to one are not what 2:284 refers to.

_________________
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 Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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 03 Apr 2020, 23:00

All times are UTC

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