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, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2010, 07:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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"!

Grandiose statements like this disturb me to no end. True scholars should know better than to equate their own conviction with the truth.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2010, 20:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Muhammad Mahmood Nada writes in the introduction of his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, pages 6-7, that all types of abrogation did not make sense to him. He asks these logical questions:

  • Abrogation of recitation and ruling: How can verses be revealed and nobody knows anything about them? Is there a certain evidence that this sort of thing happened?

    No, there isn't. All narrations about this type of abrogation are weak.

  • Abrogation of recitation but not of ruling: How did that happen? Why couldn't what was abrogated be a hadeeth and not Quran.

    I posted earlier Dr. Az-Zalmi's excellent argument that confirms this. He said that what is Quran is what has been ubiquitously narrated and explicitly said it was Quran. Since all narrations about this type of abrogation too are weak, not to mention singles, i.e., narrated by a few, what they refer to cannot be Quran.

  • Abrogation of the Quran by the Sunna or by consensus: Can either have the "strength" to abrogate the Book of God?

    The answer should have been an obvious no, but strangely enough, several scholars went for it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2011, 04:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Verses that are gone
...
  1. The evidence here solely depends on the authenticity of narrations, and that is currently a qualitative subject, so it cannot be objectively debated.

Some are easy to debate. Take for instance what Ibn Salaama reported in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 15. He repeats a claim that As-Suyooti and many others have reported and used for evidence that some verses were abrogated in recitation: A verse that is claimed to have said, "لو كان لابن آدم واديان من مال لابتغى ثالثا، ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم إلا التراب، ويتوب الله على من تاب" (If the son of Adam had two valleys of wealth, he would desire a third. Nothing fills the inside of the son of Adam but dust, and God accepts the repentance of whomever repents."

As-Suyooti reported this in his book الإتقان في علوم القرآن, volume 2, page 73. Ibn Salaama says that Muslim and Al-Bukhaari also reported it! So, I checked. Turns out that what Al-Bukhaari reported was this,
حدثنا أبو عاصم عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قال سمعت ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما يقول سمعت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لو كان لابن آدم واديان من مال لابتغى ثالثا ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب

It is a saying of the Prophet (PBUH)!

Al-Bukhaari also reported this version of the hadeeth,
حدثني محمد أخبرنا مخلد أخبرنا ابن جريج قال سمعت عطاء يقول سمعت ابن عباس يقول سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لو أن لابن آدم مثل واد مالا لأحب أن له إليه مثله ولا يملأ عين ابن آدم إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب قال ابن عباس فلا أدري من القرآن هو أم لا قال وسمعت ابن الزبير يقول ذلك على المنبر

Ibn Abbaas says he didn't know if it was Quran or hadeeth! And he heard Ibn Az-Zubair saying the same thing.

But Al-Bukhaari reported that Ibn Az-Zubayr was not confused, but rather said clearly that it was a hadeeth,
حدثنا أبو نعيم حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن سليمان بن الغسيل عن عباس بن سهل بن سعد قال سمعت ابن الزبير على المنبر بمكة في خطبته يقول يا أيها الناس إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقول لو أن ابن آدم أعطي واديا ملئا من ذهب أحب إليه ثانيا ولو أعطي ثانيا أحب إليه ثالثا ولا يسد جوف ابن آدم إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب


Al-Bukhaari also reported that Ubayy thought it was Quran,
حدثنا عبد العزيز بن عبد الله حدثنا إبراهيم بن سعد عن صالح عن ابن شهاب قال أخبرني أنس بن مالك أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لو أن لابن آدم واديا من ذهب أحب أن يكون له واديان ولن يملأ فاه إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب وقال لنا أبو الوليد حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن ثابت عن أنس عن أبي قال كنا نرى هذا من القرآن حتى نزلت ألهاكم التكاثر


Thus, all the versions of this hadeeth, five in total, found authentic by Al-Bukhaari, clearly state that the words were said by the Prophet (PBUH), but that some Sahaaba thought the words were part of the Quran. That does not make it Quran! Quran is what the Prophet (PBUH) said was Quran, dictated it, recited it in prayers and ordered it placed at a particular position relative to other verses and was narrated by thousands to thousands.

Furthermore, none of these authentic versions of the hadeeth even imply that the Prophet (PBUH) said it was Quran or that it was abrogated!

I'm perplexed by the scholars, such as Ibn Salaama and As-Suyooti, who must have read those authentic versions of this hadeeth in Al-Bukhaari, yet went on to claim them as a verse that used to be in the Quran but was abrogated, only because weak narrations say that. Is that a scholarly approach? To ignore authentic references completely and only mention weak ones?

BTW, Muslim's four versions of the hadeeth are very similar to Al-Bukhaari's, e.g.,
حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى وسعيد بن منصور وقتيبة بن سعيد قال يحيى أخبرنا وقال الآخران حدثنا أبو عوانة عن قتادة عن أنس قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لو كان لابن آدم واديان من مال لابتغى واديا ثالثا ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب وحدثنا ابن المثنى وابن بشار قال ابن المثنى حدثنا محمد بن جعفر أخبرنا شعبة قال سمعت قتادة يحدث عن أنس بن مالك قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول فلا أدري أشيء أنزل أم شيء كان يقوله بمثل حديث أبي عوانة

It was something the Prophet (PBUH) said but Anas ibn Maalik didn't know if it was Quran or hadeeth.

Ibn Salaama leaves all those nine authentic narrations and chooses instead two narrations from Anas ibn Maalik and Abdullah ibn Mas`ood, neither of which could be authenticated by the verifier of the book, Muwaffaq Fawzi Al-Jabr!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2011, 20:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Salaama leaves all those nine authentic narrations and chooses instead two narrations from Anas ibn Maalik and Abdullah ibn Mas`ood, neither of which could be authenticated by the verifier of the book, Muwaffaq Fawzi Al-Jabr!

You make a pretty strong case here. It is hard to get in the minds of the scholars who argued for abrogation based on weak evidence and against clearly much stronger evidence. My best guess is that they have personally favored a particular school of thought, or revered individuals in that school of thought, and inordinately gave emphasis to those sources over competing sources. It is not at all unusual in the middle-east culture (in modern times, but perhaps also in older times) to revere certain persons and have that overrule other evidence or even logical thinking.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2011, 20:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On pages 57-66 of his book, Nada discusses "abrogation of recitation, but not the ruling." He addresses the stoning verse and other alleged verses. The crux of the argument, and he quotes other scholars who are of the same opinion, is that the problem is attribution and accuracy of the statements. He attacks some in the chains of narration as unreliable


Ibn Salaam was one of the scholars who gave the stoning "verse" as evidence of verses that were abrogated in recitation but not in ruling. He makes that claim on page 16 of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم. He, or perhaps the verifier of his book Muwaffaq Al-Jabr, states that this is in Al-Bukhaari's and Muslim's compilations of Hadeeth.

So, I checked the two references he gave. Both narrations involve Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri. Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his landmark book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 1, pages 285-287, item no. 405, dismisses all narrations attributed to Ibn Shihaab Az-Zuhri. Not because there was anything wrong with the man, rahimahullah, but because narrations attributed to him were all narrated by Al-Waleed ibn Muhammad Al-Muwaqqiri, a man whom critics have agreed was a liar! He fabricated narrations and attributed them to Az-Zuhri, which Az-Zuhri never said. And if that wasn't enough, he claimed disconnected narrations connected. That is, a chain of narrators that was missing a narrator, he filled the vacancy, just like that.

One additional, interesting observation about the Bukhaari version of the hadeeth, is this:
ثم إنا كنا نقرأ فيما نقرأ من كتاب الله أن لا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فإنه كفر بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم أو إن كفرا بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم

Translation: [Umar said] And we used to recite, of what we recited from the Book of God, that "You must not disobey your parents; it is infidelity that you disobey your parents."

Why was that "verse" abrogated? Its teaching remained valid and repeated in the Quran many times.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2011, 04:31 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
One additional, interesting observation about the Bukhaari version of the hadeeth, is this:
ثم إنا كنا نقرأ فيما نقرأ من كتاب الله أن لا ترغبوا عن آبائكم فإنه كفر بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم أو إن كفرا بكم أن ترغبوا عن آبائكم

Translation: [Umar said] And we used to recite, of what we recited from the Book of God, that "You must not disobey your parents; it is infidelity that you disobey your parents."

I have not seen this claimed verse in any abrogation book, and I have gone through quite a number of these books. Any reason why not?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 02:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I have not seen this claimed verse in any abrogation book, and I have gone through quite a number of these books. Any reason why not?

I can only guess that they were copying the arguments they heard from their teachers or favored scholars.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 139-140, mentions that the Mu`tazila faction have argued against two types of abrogation: abrogation of recitation only and abrogation of ruling only. Their argument is two-fold:
  1. A ruling cannot be established without text!
  2. Such abrogation causes confusion and uncertainty.

Shouldn't that have been obvious to everybody?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 05:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
the Mu`tazila faction have argued against two types of abrogation: abrogation of recitation only and abrogation of ruling only.

Interestingly, that has been my view, too. I could not exclude abrogation of both recitation and ruling. I do feel that this type of abrogation never happened, but I am not as confident of that as I am with the other types. Furthermore, whether it happened or not is totally "academic" as it has no practical consequences of any kind.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Types of abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 19:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Furthermore, whether it happened or not is totally "academic" as it has no practical consequences of any kind.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Case in point is the hadeeth, reported by Muslim and narrated by `Aa'isha (RA) that there was Quran, as late as shortly after the Prophet's death (PBUH) that stated that five sucklings constitute siblingship. The majority of the scholars have not accepted what `Aa'isha said here! Indeed, those "verses" were not memorized by anybody, nor were they written in the originals entrusted to Faatima and Hafsa (RA) by the Prophet (PBUH). The conclusion, the consensus has been, that the verses were abrogated in recitation and ruling. The new ruling has been that one suckling establishes siblingship, despite some strong evidence against it (another hadeeth reported by Muslim).

The conclusion should have been that it was not Quran in the first place.

Obviously, such matter is not academic. Deciding it can mean preventing or annulling valid marriages, with all the consequences that can result from that. It can also mean allowing marriages that should be forbidden. The result of not settling the matter has been differences in rulings: `Aa'isha, Is-haaq and Ash-Shaafi`i opined that ten sucklings are the minimum, Ibn Hanbal said five are and so did `Aa'isha in another report, and the majority, such as Sufyaan, Maalik, Al-Awzaa`i, Ibn Al-Mubaarak and Wakee` all said one is the minimum.

_________________
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, 7, 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 17 Sep 2019, 13:09

All times are UTC

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