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  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 17:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This case is about whether fighting the enemy can be made during the sacrosanct months. Scholars have said that it was initially forbidden to do so, per 2:217 but allowed later with 9:36. Here are the two verses,


is claimed to have been abrogated by


Doesn't 2:217 make it clear that fighting during the sacrosanct months is a major sin, but that it is justified when Muslims are attacked or persecuted? Then the verse allows fighting under some circumstances, doesn't it? And isn't that what 9:36 also says, that there are four sacred months during which we must not "wrong ourselves", but that we are to fight the polytheists, even during those months, as they fight us during them?

So, where is the conflict? Nothing got abrogated here.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 18:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
I kept going back and forth between the two verses looking for what exactly is considered as abrogation. The only apparent "contradiction" happens entirely within 9:36, where at the beginning the sacrosanct months were announced with restrictions on us, then we were ordered in a blanket way to fight collectively as we are fought collectively. Unless we are going to start talking about a verse abrogating itself, there is no case for abrogation here. Is every linguistic expression that uses an exception going to be considered abrogation now? How about



Is this supposed to be considered a case of abrogation with "But do not" (or double abrogation with "except" for that matter)?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2010, 19:50 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
I guess once you believe that there are abrogated verses within the text of the Quran even though none was designated as such, it becomes a curious exercise to try to find those verses that may be abrogated.

Also, Asad's opinion that it was the easy way out when people could not reconcile two verses in their own mind is quite plausible. The problem now is that this creates a "license to abrogate" and that license is more likely to be exercised by those who are less analytic in their thinking and thus less likely to understand the subtleties.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2010, 02:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Also, Asad's opinion that it was the easy way out when people could not reconcile two verses in their own mind is quite plausible. The problem now is that this creates a "license to abrogate" and that license is more likely to be exercised by those who are less analytic in their thinking and thus less likely to understand the subtleties.

Unfortunately, that license can, and has been greatly misused. When a number of credible scholars ruled that Hadeeth can abrogate the Quran, the job of the enemies of the Quran became easy. Quoting hadeeths they made up but rated authentic by them, they could claim that parts of the Quran have been abrogated in ruling and others physically removed. Violent extremists claim that the "sword verse" has abrogated 124 verses, including all verses urging dialog, negotiation, reconciliation, courtesy, co-existence, etc.

This is why this subject is so important and investigating it is necessary.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2010, 02:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
the majority (according to Shu`la),
Ali, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib and Salmaan ibn Yasaar (according to Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni),
`Ataa' ibn Maysara (according to At-Tabari, says Dr. Zayd),
An-Nahhaas, At-Tabari, Ibn Al-Jawzi (they said the abrogating is the sword verse),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Makki,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ibn Salaama,
As-Suyooti.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood and Mujaahid (according to Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni),
Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah,
Ibn Jurayj, Jaabir (implied),
Ar-Raazi,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Az-Zurqaani,
Al-Asfahaani,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 02 Sep 2010, 00:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya makes an uncharacteristically weak point about this claim, in his refutation of it in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 189-190. He says that the prohibition against fighting in the sacred months is for Muslims amongst themselves only, but for their enemies no such sanction. He brings for evidence,

I don't know how he missed the words "Except those you covenanted at the Sacrosanct Mosque, as long as they are straight with you be straight with them"?! How can that be evidence that fighting non-Muslims can be during the sacred months?

Then he quotes for evidence,

I don't know how he missed the word "If" which starts the verse?!

Why has Chapter 9 been so hard for so many Muslims to understand? God makes the same point over and over in this Chapter but not too many got it. The point is: fighting is for self defense and retaliation only, never preemptive or aggressive. Treaties must be honored. There shall be no more armistice treaties with polytheists. Without a non-aggression treaty, polytheists have two options: live peacefully with Muslims or else their aggression will be met with a fight.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2010, 23:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One of the problems in the literature, such as Aş-Şa`di's book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد (pages 74-75), about this claim is that scholars who opined that fighting in the sacrosanct months is allowed, their opinion is interpreted to mean that they approve of this claim! No. Fighting in the sacrosanct months is conditionally allowed. It is contingent on enemy aggression demonstrated by either of the two contingencies listed in 2:217, namely: preventing Muslims from going to the Sacrosanct Mosque or expelling Muslims from it. The verse summarizes the contingency as religious persecution.

So is 9:36 contingent on self defense of Muslims against aggressive enemies of Islam. Neither verse abrogates the other or any other verse for that matter.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 18 Oct 2010, 16:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 86, makes the good point that specifying sacred months is a means of attaining peace. When people know that certain times are sacred and they must not fight during them, they are more likely to stop fighting.

It follows then that those who agreed that 2:217 was abrogated are destroying that avenue for peace.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 28 Nov 2010, 14:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 159-163 (items 925-934) confirms the circumstances of revelation and rejects this claim on the basis of no contradiction, since the exception clearly stated in 2:217, namely, persecution in religion, is the contingency that permits the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months. He quotes a narration from `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah making that clear, reported by At-Tabari in his exegesis.

Dr. Zayd also discusses the claim that the abrogating in this case is the practice of the Prophet (PBUH). Those folks cite the Pledge of Ridhwaan to fight Quraysh, held in Zhul-Qi`da of year 6 A.H. Also, they cite the raid on the Hawaazin tribe in Hunayn and the Thaqeef tribe in At-Taa'if, both were also in Zhul-Hijja, a sacred month. Dr. Zayd points out that the last sermon, ubiquitously reported, took place after all that, in year 10 A.H., and it reaffirmed the permanent prohibition of fighting in the sacred months. The Pledge of Ridhwaan was held in response to the news, which turned out to be false, Thank God, that the polytheists of Quraysh had killed Uthmaan. If they had, that would've been an aggression against Muslims which justifies fighting in the sacred month.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:36 abrogate 2:217?
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 16:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 11-112, approves this claim and states that the majority does as well. He says that `Ataa' was the only one who disagreed and that "is far fetched!"

Well, Dr. Faaris, who verified Shu`la's book, elaborated further on `Ataa's dissension and added Mujaahid to the dissenters. He mentioned a narration by Ibn Jurayj in which he asked `Ataa' how come it was forbidden to fight during the sacrosanct months and now they can. `Ataa's answer was to swear that "fighting at the Sanctuary or during the sacrosanct months is unlawful unless they are fought. That was never abrogated." See the footnotes of page 112.

Isn't that obvious? I continue to be puzzled by folks who don't seem to see the obvious.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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, 16:47

All times are UTC

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