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  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 28 May 2010, 05:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 127-130, refutes this case. His last argument is about explaining why God described the actions of the Sahaaba who thought they were doing something wrong as خيانة (betrayal). He says that in Islam, actions are tied to intentions. Thus, doing something that you believe is in violation to God's commands is a betrayal, even if it turns out it's not in violation and you only thought it was.

I don't know if this true and I wish he gave proof.

He adds a few names to the list of people who rejected this claim: Ibn Al-`Arabi, Al-Aloosi and Ar-Raazi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 07:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, page 335, offers a brilliant argument for refuting this case. He says that the claim that the fasting of prior nations forbade sex after waking up in the middle of the night, that the claim assumes the validity of a narration about the people of the Book, instead of believing that the Quran corrected that assumption.

Indeed, we know that prior scriptures were edited and therefore what the People of the Book say about their rituals may not be what God ordered them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2010, 19:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 212-213, Al-Khazraji reports that some scholars, such as Mu`aazh ibn Jabal and Ibn Abbaas said that 2:183 is abrogating, not abrogated. They said it abrogated the "mandate" to fast three days every month. `Aa'isha (RA) said it abrogated the mandate to fast `Aashooraa', the tenth of Muharram. This was also mentioned by An-Nahhaas in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, pages 21-22, said Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris in the footnotes of page 107 of his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ.

My humble comment is that there was never a mandate to fast any period other than the month of Ramadhaan. The burden of proof of such mandate falls on the shoulders of the claimants: Has the Prophet used the word mandate when he ordered those fasts? Did he say that those who break those fasts without excuse will be punished? Did he order those who could not fast those days to ransom the fast or fast other days in substitution? If he did not, and there is no evidence that he did, then it was not a mandate.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2010, 12:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Nabha reported that Ar-Raazi showed six arguments proving that the prohibition was in effect, but Al-Asfahaani rejected them all. Dr. Nabha did not list the arguments or the counter-arguments. I wish he did.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 134-139 (items 873-882) agrees that mating must have been forbidden before and thus the pro-abrogation folk have a point here. However, none of the narrations he quotes state that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was the one who issued the prohibition. He concludes that he must have and calls that, like As-Suyooti likes to call it, the practical Sunna. I humbly disagree. We do not know the Sunna from acts of the Sahaaba; we know it from acts and words of the Prophet (PBUH).

That being said, Dr. Zayd rejects the claim of abrogation, because he says 2:183 does not prove that God prohibited mating at first, so if 2:187 abrogated anything, it abrogated that "practical Sunna", not 2:183.

Perhaps we should get a copy of Ar-Raazi's exegesis التفسير الكبير to see if the evidence he provided amounts to proof of prohibition.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 06 Dec 2010, 06:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Perhaps we should get a copy of Ar-Raazi's exegesis التفسير الكبير to see if the evidence he provided amounts to proof of prohibition.

It's a huge book (several volumes) and I couldn't find it on line, unfortunately.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 03:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It's not clear why that was the practice. The implication from 2:183 is that this was the practice of the people of the Book, and therefore Muslims did likewise. I don't know why they thought that was the mandate in 2:183 if the Prophet (PBUH) did not say it was.

Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 29, quotes a hadeeth, only reported by Ibn Hanbal, that suggests that the Prophet (PBUH), discouraged Umar's action. That does not constitute an abrogation situation, even if the hadeeth is authentic, because it does not say that a verse discouraged the practice.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 13:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Even if it was forbidden before, that would not be through a verse in the Quran hence the abrogation claim would fail

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 49, presents an argument for this claim and another against it and implies he favors the latter.

His argument for the claim is that mating with wives on fasting eves was forbidden in prior scriptures and became allowed in ours.

He rebuts that in his argument against the claim, saying that it needs to be proven that such was the case, since abrogation cannot be claimed without substance (قرينة). He also disagrees with the controversial juristic rule that states that prior laws apply to us. I agree with him on both. Teachings from prior scriptures are not laws for us unless they are cited in the Quran, for the simple reason that prior scriptures have been edited by man.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 2:187 abrogate 2:183?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 18:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dehlvi, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 60, rejects this claim on the basis that the comparative in 2:183 is in the mandate, not in the manner. He says that it is obvious from the words كما كتب (Just as it was prescribed). Indeed, it is obvious.

He also made it a point to say that cannot find any evidence that the Prophet (PBUH) has ordered abstention, which is the reason why all the pro-abrogation scholars cited for making this claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


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 17 Sep 2019, 12:47

All times are UTC

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