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  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 4:48 abrogate 2:81?
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
This case is about which sins may not be forgiven,

is claimed by some to have been abrogated by

Ibn Al-Jawzi reports this case in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan", as follows:

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "بلى من كسب سيئة وأحاطت به خطيئته"، جمهور المفسرين على أن المراد بالسيئة الشرك فلا يتوجه على هذا القول نسخ أصلا وقد روى السدي عن أشياخه أن المراد بالسيئة الذنب من الذنوب التي وعد الله تعالى عليها النار فعلى هذا يتوجه النسخ بقوله "إن الله لا يغفر أن يشرك به ويغفر ما دون ذلك لمن يشاء". على أنه يجوز أن يحمل ذلك على من أتى السيئة مستحلا فلا يكون نسخا

Ibn Al-Jawzi says that the majority opinion is that the sin referenced in 2:81 is shirk and that makes it agree with 4:48 rather than be abrogated by it. He argues that it is possible that the sin referenced in 2:81 is the one committed with defiance and that is not forgiven.

I do not agree that the sin in question is "shirk", but I could be wrong. I see Al-Jawzi's argument reinforced by the verb كسب (to earn) which implies that the sin is in defiance. I also see the clause وأحاطت به خطيئته (and his sin surrounded him) further paints the picture about the kind of sin in question. It's the sin from which the person did not and would not repent until he died. In which case, that sin is not forgiven either. The fact that God says in 4:48 لمن يشاء (to whomever He wills) means that God reserves the right to forgive anybody but He won't forgive the sin He described in 2:81. No abrogation needed.

Besides, these two verses are declarative and abrogation applies only to imperative sentences.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:48 abrogate 2:81?
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 06:47 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I also see the clause وأحاطت به خطيئته (and his sin surrounded him)

This is the core of the case. The condition in 2:81 that results in the stated punishment (may God save us from it) is a conjunction of two statements, so both statements have to be valid to invoke the resulting punishment. An argument for abrogation has to show that وأحاطت به خطيئته can still fall under the scope of forgiveness in 4:48. However, it is plausible that وأحاطت به خطيئته is already a figurative way of saying that those sins have not been forgiven, in which case the abrogation argument would be void.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 19:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
As-Suddi, though it's not clear if he was convinced of it.

Against:
The majority, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Mujaahid, Qataada, Ibn Jurayj, Ar-Rabee` ibn Khuthaym Al-Koofi and Abu-Waa'il Shaqeeq ibn Salama Al-Asadi (implied by their interpretation of 'sin' as 'shirk', according to Dr. Zayd),
Al-Hasan (implied),
Al-Asfahaani,
Ash-Shawkaani (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi,
Ihab Hasan Abduh.

Unclear:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (presented arguments for and against the claim but did not weigh in),
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris (did not comment on Shu`la's indecision)

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:48 abrogate 2:81?
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2010, 07:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 408-410 in volume 1 of his book. The basis of this claim is an exegesis of 2:81that is weak in attribution and lacking in credibility. The other basis are the general narrations from the Prophet (PBUH) that believers will not be permanently in the Hellfire.

Zaid refutes the claim based on the context. The previous verse,


makes it plausible that 2:81 is in response to the stated claim by non-Muslims, and the following verse,


makes it plausible that 2:81's permanence in Hellfire is in contrast to the permanence of believers in Paradise.

He also mentions that "his sin surrounded him" makes the circumstance especially grave so there is no conflict, not to mention that 2:81 is a statement of fact aimed as a warning, so there is no actionable ruling in it to abrogate.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:48 abrogate 2:81?
PostPosted: 04 Jun 2010, 07:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 327-328, presents a clever argument as he refutes this case. He quotes 16:100 as he defines what shirk is,


He argues that because of this shirk, i.e., listening to Satan, people sin and are unable to find guidance,


And that is what 2:81 speaks about when it speaks about sin surrounding people. They are unable to escape it and find guidance. Ihab says this does not happen to a believer because,


I find his argument quite insightful.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:48 abrogate 2:81?
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 19:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Abu-`Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 99-100, presents arguments for and against this claim but does not take sides. The presenter of his book, Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris also does not comment.

One argument against the claim is by Ash-Shawkaani, in his famous book فتح القدير, volume 1, page 105. He said that 2:81 was about the Jews, as evidenced by the verse before it and the verse after it. He favors the interpretation of سيئة (a displeasing act) as 'shirk', the associating in worship of others with God.

Shu`la also said that another interpretation, Dr. Faaris explained that it was made by Al-Hasan and As-Suddi (according to Ibn Katheer in his exegesis, volume 1, page 119), is that سيئة means major sins, while خطيئة means minor sins. As such, Shu`la postulated, they approved of the abrogation claim.

I don't quite understand why some scholars do not accept the linguistic meaning of words. The two words in 2:81 which have been subject to multiple interpretations are: سيئة and خطيئة. The former means a displeasing act and the latter means sin. IMHO, they are cause and effect. The sin is the cause and the displeasure of God is the effect. Verse 2:81 simply states that deliberate commitment of sin displeases God and insistence on the sin, by repeating it or or not repenting from it, will lead the sinner to eternity in the hellfire. 'Shirk', on the other hand, is another category. It's not a subset of sin, nor a superset, because sin is the act of a believer that is contrary to God's instructions. 'Shirk' is a wrong belief.

With that straightforward understanding, there is no cause for this abrogation claim. Each verse addresses a different subject.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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 25 Oct 2020, 19:13

All times are UTC

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