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  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2010, 11:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
I noticed that the verse


may be taken as evidence against abrogation of the ruling but not the recitation, although it is vulnerable evidence.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 22:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On pages 54-56 of his book, Nada asserts that there is no "abrogation of recitation and ruling" in the Quran. He focusses on Aisha's narration about the nursing verses, and asserts that narration of singles cannot be taken as evidence about the Quran. He cites Imam Malik as having rejected that narration. He also mentions other narrations about missing verses/chapters and dismisses them as singles, too.

Pages 35-36 of this book attack the authenticity of the nursing narrations attributed to Aisha, may God be pleased with her. The author makes good points IMHO, mostly casting doubt about the reliability of Amrah, the lady who attributed the narration to Aisha, and raising the question of why no other source has ever made reference to such nursing verses.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 22:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Pages 37-39 of the same book elaborately attack the authenticity of narrations talking about how certain chapters of the Quran used to be much longer than how they ended up in the text.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2010, 06:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
On page 55 of this book, the author makes an interesting refutation of 'abrogation of recitation but not the ruling' for those who believe in the abrogation doctrine. He says that since they believe that there are verses that were kept in the Quran in spite of their ruling being invalid, it would have been more fitting (من باب أولى) that other verses whose ruling is still valid would remain in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2010, 20:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
In his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 40-43, Haani Taahir mentions two narrations that I haven't seen before, which he says have been used for evidence by the pro-abrogation folk:

  1. Abul-`Alaa' ibn Shakheer said, "The hadeeths of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, did naskh to each other like the [verses of] Quran did naskh to each other." Reported by Muslim.

    Taahir points out the following points as he refutes that this is evidence for abrogation:

    1. This is the opinion of a Sahaabi, not something the Prophet (PBUH) said.
    2. One narrator in the narration chain, `Ubaydillah ibn Mu`aazh Al-`Anbari has been rated "not much" by An-Nawawi, while others rated him trustworthy.
    3. The Sahaabi could have meant that the hadeeths confirm each other like verses of the Quran confirm each other. It's a valid meaning of naskh that cannot be dismissed.

  2. Umar said, "The most reading among us is Ubayy and the most juristic is Ali, and we leave out of what Ubayy says, and that is that Ubayy says, 'I do not leave out anything of what I heard from the Messenger of God, peace be upon him' and God said 'If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten.' ", reported by Al-Bukhaari.

    According to Taahir, Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Hajar, in his famous book فتح الباري, volume 9, page 18, used this narration to prove that verses of the Quran were abrogated in recitation. He argued that Umar refused to take all the verses he heard from Ubayy who refused to leave out the abrogated verses!

    Taahir rejects that argument with the following points:

    • "The most reading" does not necessarily refer to the Quran, it is general about reading aptitude. One might argue that this generality was made specific by the later statement of Ubayy "I do not leave out of what I heard from the Messenger of God (PBUH)", but that includes the Hadeeth, doesn't it?

    • Ibn `Amr nararted that the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Take the recitation of the Quran from four: Ibn Mas`ood, Saalim, Ubayy and Mu`aazh ibn Jabal." Also reported by Al-Bukhaari. So, how can Umar disobey the Prophet (PBUH) by leaving out recitations by Ubayy?

      I'd add that this is a hadeeth while the former narration is not, since it is attributed to Umar and not to the Prophet (PBUH). Thus, the hadeeth takes precedence.

      Taahir adds that Ubayy is not only fully trusted by the Prophet (PBUH) in recitation, but also in inscribing the Quran. He quotes a narration by Anas, also reported by Al-Bukhaari, that the Quran was put together during the life of the Prophet (PBUH) by four people: Ubayy, Mu`aazh ibn Jabal, Abu-Zayd and Zayd ibn Thaabit."

    • If we concede that Umar picked verses he heard from Ubayy, what was his criteria? If he wouldn't take the word of a fully trusted reciter whom he admitted was more reading than him, then whose word does he take?

    • Proponents of abrogation of recitation have said that the mechanism that made it possible was that people would wake up totally forgetting some verses! Taahir asks, "How come Ubayy did not forget?"

    • Taahir explains the Umar narration by concluding that the sole narrator, Habeeb ibn Abi-Thaabit, simply did not understand what Umar meant and narrated his own understanding. I'd add that the last sentence could very well have been Habeeb's interjection, not Umar's words. Taahir says that Habeeb was well known for imposition (تدليس).

    • How come we never heard about a debate between Umar and Ubayy about what verses to include in or exclude from the Quran? And if they did not debate and somehow settled their differences, then how come the rest of the Sahaaba mentioned nothing about it?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2010, 23:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
According to Taahir, Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Hajar, in his famous book فتح الباري, volume 9, page 18, used this narration to prove that verses of the Quran were abrogated in recitation.

I agree with your analysis. I want to note that

  • That narration has no impact on the abrogation doctrine, even under the above interpretation.

  • Through bundling, people have used that narration as evidence for 'abrogation' at large, extrapolating to the abrogation doctrine.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2010, 05:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 152-153, mentions how the scholars have bundled with abrogation matters that don't belong with it at all. In doing so, they defended the bundle as proof that abrogation did occur in the Quran! For example,

  1. Abrogating pre-Islamic practices, such as drinking alcohol, dealing in usury and marrying any number of women. That has nothing to do with abrogation, since those pre-Islamic practices were not ordered by God; people invented them. Yet, scholars called that naskh.

  2. Abrogating habits Muslims had, such as returning greetings and looking up to the sky while in prayer. None of that was by command from God, therefore, abrogation does not apply. Yet, scholars called it naskh anyway.

Indeed, much of the disagreement about the abrogation issue in general and the abrogation doctrine in particular stems from semantics.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2010, 20:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 294 (item 1208), says something strange. He says that in order to know that a verse has truly abrogated a Sunna, a hadeeth must so state. On what basis does he make this rule?

Why would we need two uncertain narrations, and most hadeeths are uncertain in their occurrence (ظني الورود), to enforce a verse, which is certain in its occurrence (قطعي الورود)? Isn't it more logical to conclude that a hadeeth that orders something contrary to what a verse orders, that this hadeeth must either be unauthentic or has been abrogated by the verse?

As examples, Dr. Zayd cites 2:144 as abrogating the Sunna of praying toward Jerusalem, and the prohibition, by 2:238, of talking to others while praying. See this topic for a detailed discussion of the Qibla redirection issue. As for 2:238, since when is the prohibition of something about which nothing before was specified, since when is that considered abrogation? Any command in Islam that was not issued on day 1 would be considered abrogation under that strange rule!

For completion, here is the verse,


Dr. Zayd repeats his theory about a confirming hadeeth, later on pages 305-306, as he cites two cases where the Quran abrogated the Sunna. The first case is 2:185 abrogating the fasting in `Aashooraa' and the second is 2:187 abrogating the practice of not mating with wives on fasting eves. He relies heavily on authentic narrations, none of which is attributed to the Prophet (PBUH), interpreting the matter as abrogation. That is not proof of abrogation; it's the opinion of a highly esteemed scholar.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2010, 19:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 294 (item 1208), says something strange. He says that in order to know that a verse has truly abrogated a Sunna, a hadeeth must so state. On what basis does he make this rule?

He may be following the opinion of Imam Al-Shafeiey, who put a great effort in establishing the authority of the Prophetic Sunna. At his time, the sources of legislation have become too broad, and I can perfectly see why he perceived a need to both reemphasize the role of the Prophetic Sunna in no uncertain terms, and also to throw out the other types of "Sunna" that are not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH) but were being pushed as authoritative sources of legislation. Given the context in which he lived and the importance of the task he envisioned, I can see why he was perhaps overprotective of the Prophetic Sunna even in deference to the Quran itself.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Dec 2010, 00:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
He may be following the opinion of Imam Al-Shafeiey, who put a great effort in establishing the authority of the Prophetic Sunna.
...
Given the context in which he lived and the importance of the task he envisioned, I can see why he was perhaps overprotective of the Prophetic Sunna even in deference to the Quran itself.

I'm sure you're right. It is clear throughout his book that Dr. Zayd was a devout follower of Imaam Ash-Shaafi`i, may God bless their souls. I have no problem with that of course. My problem is when he says near the end of the book, volume 2, page 325, that his conclusions about abrogation in the Quran are "the truth about which there ought not to be a disagreement"!

He also repeats the motivation of Ash-Shaafi`i who rejected that the Quran can abrogate the Sunna. He says on the same page, "so that no one would use abrogation as a means of rejecting a Sunna by claiming that it was abrogated by the Quran." What happens when a hadeeth contradicts a verse? Dr. Zayd lists several cases where he concluded that a verse abrogated a Sunna. Thus, he does not entirely agree with Ash-Shaafi`i.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  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 27 Feb 2021, 02:59

All times are UTC

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