TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2517 |
Page 14 of 18 |
Author: | Linguistic [ 28 Jun 2010, 05:49 ] |
Post subject: | Did 9:5, 2:191 or 2:193 abrogate 2:191? |
According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 207-211, this verse too was claimed abrogated by the sword verse, Said An-Nahhaas, Qataada, Ibn Al-Baarizi, Muqaatil, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Salaama. The reason given for the claim is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal who was grabbing the curtains of the Ka`ba. Al-Ghaali reports that Mujaahid rejected the claim and so did Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Qurtubi, Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows, Ash-Shawkaani, Ibn Al`Arabi, Ar-Raazi, Al-Jassaas and Al-Ghaali. One of the arguments made by the anti-abrogation folk is that some exceptions from the general rule were granted to the Prophet (PBUH). The event of Ibn Khatal was one of those. Al-Bukhaari reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Verily, this town has been sanctioned by God the Day He created the heavens and the earth. It was never allowed to be violated by anyone before me or after me. I was allowed to break its sanctuary only an hour of a day." This hadeeth was mentioned by Dr. Mustafa Zayd too as he refuted this claim on pages 99-101 (items 825-827) of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم. Additional arguments he made are:
Dr. Zayd also mentioned that Muqaatil claimed that the abrogating is the opening of the verse, "And kill them wherever you find them." I never read anywhere else that in the same text the abrogating sentence comes before the abrogated sentence! Dr. Zayd also reported that Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas has claimed that the abrogating is He quickly and correctly dismisses this claim on the basis that 2:191 specifies "where" while 2:193 specifies "why." See more about this particular claim in this topic. Who said what: For: Qataada, Muqaatil (who said the abrogating is the opening of the verse), Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas (who said the abrogating is 2:193), Ad-Dhahhaak (according to Shu`la), An-Nahhaas, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Baarizi. Against: Ibn Abbaas (according to Shu`la), Mujaahid, Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows, Ash-Shawkaani, Ibn Al`Arabi, Al-Jassaas Al-Qurtubi, Ar-Raazi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Jabri, Dr. Mustafa Zayd, Husaam Al-Ghaali. Consequences: Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 82-84, rejects this claim and says that accepting it leads to violation of the sanctity of the Sacrosanct Mosque. He also says that God's purpose of prohibiting fighting at the Sacrosanct Mosque, except when attacked, is to limit the places where fighting is permissible. When people have a forbidden place, or a sanctuary, during a fight, they may cool down and may stop or pause the fight. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 28 Jun 2010, 17:24 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 207-211, this verse too was claimed abrogated by the sword verse, Said An-Nahhaas, Qataada, Ibn Al-Baarizi, Muqaatil, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Salaama. The reason given for the claim is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal who was grabbing the curtains of the Ka`ba. Notwithstanding the authenticity issues, it seems to me that either Ibn Khatal was fighting (so people feared for their physical well being if they let him be), in which case that belongs to the explicit exception stated in 2:191, or else he was not fighting, in which case it would have been easy just to arrest him and take him somewhere else to carry out whatever punishment is due. The story as narrated is wanting IMHO. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 28 Jun 2010, 18:28 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi adds this verse. to the list of verses he believes were abrogated by the sword verse Al-Ghaali's coverage of this case in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 211-218 is a gem! He refutes it of course. First, he reports that An-Nahhaas stated that the majority have said 2:217 was abrogated by the sword verse, such as Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Az-Zahri, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib, Sulaymaan ibn Yasaar, Az-Zamakhshari and Al-Qurtubi. An-Nahhaas brings for evidence of abrogation the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) fought the Hawaazin tribe in the sacred month of Zhul-Qi`da. Al-Ghaali mentions the circumstance of revelation: a mission of the Prophet (PBUH) lead by Abdullah ibn Jahsh killed Ibn Al-Hadhrami the first day of Rajab. Al-Ghaali starts his refutation argument quite simply: Verse 2:217 clearly states that "religious persecution is a worse sin than fighting in a sacred month." Thus, the verse allows fighting in a sacred month out of necessity! Al-Ghaali then almost cries as he reflects on the countless wars between Muslims, many of which were in sacred months. He says that if Muslims heeded 2:217, they would not have engaged in so many wars, since the length of sacred months is a third of a year. Muslims would have engaged in a third fewer wars if they complied with God's instructions in 2:217! Al-Ghaali adds that the wisdom of sacred months is to secure the road for pilgrims and to pause wars and cool down, giving negotiation, reconciliation and treaties a chance. Then Al-Ghaali reports a most interesting point from Imaam Al-Fakhr Ar-Raazi. He noticed a linguistic peculiarity in 2:217, namely, قتال فيه كبير (a fighting in it is a big sin). Ar-Raazi explains that when an indefinite word is repeated, the second mention is not the same as the first mention, but when a definite word is repeated, the repetition refers to the same thing. He gives for an example,
");
}//-->
in which the second ease is not the same as the first while the second hardship is the same as the first. By the same token, the second mention of قتال (a fight) in 2:217 is not the same as the first one. Ar-Raazi concludes that the first mention of قتال is general while the second one is specific and refers to cases like those of Ibn Al-Hadhrami, i.e., self defense against religious persecution or sedition. If God wanted to forbid all fighting in a sacred months, regardless of the situation, He would have made the second mention definite, e.g., القتال فيه كبير. I can also see that the very fact the word is indefinite implies that it's not inclusive. That is, it does not talk about all fights, just one kind of fights it labels a big sin. That one kind, judging by the many other verses that explain it, is aggression. I haven't heard this analysis before: that repeating an indefinite is not repeating the same thing, but rather referring to another thing in the same category. I'd like to check that out further, but for now I'm content taking Ar-Raazi's word for it. This gets me thinking. The next indefinite words in the verse are صد (shunning), كفر (rejection) and إخراج (evicting). Why are they indefinite? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. I looked up three exegeses and found nothing that reflects on this peculiar style. Regardless, the following words are definite, الفتنة (religious persecution) and القتل (killing), making it clear that all religious persecution is a bigger sin than any killing in the Sacrosanct Mosque. Scholars who reject this abrogation claim include: `Ataa', Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Al`Arabi, Ar-Raazi, Rasheed Ridha and Al-Ghaali. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 28 Jun 2010, 19:58 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is 2:256 Al-Ghaali, who refutes this claim in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 218-224, reports a most compelling story. `Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, said to an old Christian woman, "O old woman, become a Muslim, for God has sent Muhammad, peace be upon him, with the truth." The woman replied, "I'm an old woman and death is getting near to me." Umar said, "O God, be [my] witness" and he recited "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Al-Ghaali says that Umar did not think that 2:256 was abrogated, so is it right for anyone after that to think otherwise? |
Author: | Linguistic [ 29 Jun 2010, 05:04 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that this verse, was claimed by Ibn Abbaas and Qataada to have been abrogated by the sword verse. Al-Ghaali covers this claim in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 224-229, and rejects it. He points out a number of opinions of scholars, some of which is strange:
Al-Ghaali quotes Muhammad Abduh and Rasheed Ridha and agrees with them. They said that the context here is disbelievers. When Muslims migrated to Medina, the migration was a litmus test for faith. In addition, the Meccans would kill any Muslim they found if he was not protected, so that is why God allowed Muslims in 4:89 to treat disbelievers the same way, with the exception of two categories: disbelievers who join tribes who have treaties with Muslims, or disbelievers who come to Medina not wanting to fight Muslims nor wanting to fight Meccans either. Isn't that what is obvious from the two verses? Ar-Raazi also rejected this claim and he quoted and as supporting the same principle: you don't fight those who don't fight you. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 29 Jun 2010, 21:29 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
In his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 232-236, Al-Ghaali brings attention to the claim that was abrogated by the sword verse. This claim was made by Qataada, Ikrima and Ibn Hazm. Ibn Abbaas said it was abrogated by the Jizya verse. Ibn Salaama agreed. In another report, Ibn Abbaas said it was abrogated by Muqaatil agreed. An-Nahhaas also agreed about abrogation. But Ibn Al`Arabi rejected the abrogation claim, because, he said, there is no conflict between the two verses. He read 47:35 to mean that Muslims should not be weak and seek armistice without a fight, but if the enemy seeks it, Muslims are to accept. Az-Zamakhshari agreed and so did As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd. Al-Qurtubi also rejected the abrogation claim and he cited the practice of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Sahaaba, such as Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) who negotiated with enemies and stopped the fight. Mujaahid said that the people referred to in 8:61 are the People of the Book, specifically Banu Qurayzha, and since the Jizya is taken from such folk, there is no cause to claim abrogation. At-Tabari and Al-Jassaas rejected the abrogation claim. At-Tabari went further to criticize what Qataada said. He said (my translation), "What Qataada said has no basis from the Quran, the Sunna, intuition or reason!" The sword verse, he emphasized, was about the polytheists of Arabia only. Ibn Katheer also rejects the abrogation claim saying that the practice of the Prophet at Hudaybiya proves otherwise and that Chapter 9 orders the fight when possible. I humbly disagree with both of those arguments but not with the conclusion. First, Hudaybiya took place before Chapter 9 was revealed. Second, there is no indication in Chapter 9 that the fight is whenever possible. Al-Ghaali also sees weakness in Ibn Katheer's arguments, but Rasheed Ridha agreed with Ibn Katheer. Who said what For: Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Ikrima, Al-Hasan, Mujaahid (according to Dr. Zayd), An-Nahhaas, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi. Against: Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (by his practice), As-Suddi, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Al`Arabi, Az-Zamakhshari, Al-Qurtubi, At-Tabari, Al-Jassaas, Ibn Katheer, M. Rasheed Ridha, Dr. Mustafa Zayd, Husaam Al-Ghaali. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 09 Jul 2010, 04:28 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is 2:256. Ihaab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 191-200, refutes any claim that 2:256 or other verses that teach freedom of religion have been abrogated. One of his arguments is (my translation), "Verse 2:256 came with its contingency; it explained why there should be no compulsion in religion! It says, 'The right course has become clear from the wrong.' If we concede that 2:256 was abrogated by the sword verse, do we then conclude that now the right course is no longer clear from the wrong course?" |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 10 Jul 2010, 19:07 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: "Verse 2:256 came with its contingency; it explained why there should be no compulsion in religion! It says, 'The right course has become clear from the wrong.' If we concede that 2:256 was abrogated by the sword verse, do we then conclude that now the right course is no longer clear from the wrong course?" Nice! |
Author: | Linguistic [ 04 Aug 2010, 03:25 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Linguistic wrote: He mentioned something I've read elsewhere that some scholars called 9:36 the sword verse instead of 9:5. This is noteworthy, since many scholars referred to "the sword verse" without actually quoting it. Turns out that some scholars believe that the Jizya verse, 9:29, is the sword verse! One such scholar was Abu-Ja`far Al-Khazraji, author of نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, see pages 119-122 of volume 1. He agrees that it abrogated all verses of the Quran that required peaceful co-existence and pardoning and endurance. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 04 Aug 2010, 03:52 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses? |
Professor Al-Mi`yaar Al-Idreesi, in the footnotes to his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 196, quotes As-Suyooti from his book الإتقان في علوم القرآن stating that Ibn Al`Arabi did say in his abrogation book that the sword verse abrogated 124 verses but that it's likely that he was simply reporting what others said. As-Suyooti ridicules his claim that the sword verse abrogated itself as its epilogue "But when they repent, establish prayer and pay alms then let them go" abrogated its beginning. He called such claim "pure ignorance!" (جهل محض) |
Page 14 of 18 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |