TheMostReadBook.org

I wonder in what sense is he using the verb 'abrogate' since the case 2:240 which he agrees with has no annulment in it.

In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh propounds the opinions of the scholars in this matter. He says that the majority, with whom he agrees, have allowed it, but Ash-Shaafii and Ibn Hanbal both rejected it.

He said that the arguments of the majority are these verses,

And

And

All these verses do not prove that the Sunna can abrogate the Quran. They only prove that the Sunna must be upheld. The burden of proof of the claim in question is to show any authentic hadeeth in which the Prophet (PBUH) has ruled contrary to the Quran.

Well, that is what Al-Areedh shows next. He cites two examples:

• Verse 2:180 orders a will (Wasiyya) for parents and relatives, but the hadeeth "لا وصية لوارث" (there shall be no bequest for an heir) abrogates the verse. We talked about this before. The hadeeth forbids a bequest to an heir who has inherited by way of Islamic law of inheritance. Verse 2:180 speaks of a will, not a bequest. Thus, there is no abrogation here.
• The Prophet (PBUH) stoned adulterers and that abrogates 24:2,
  
  
  
  That is a good evidence, but why doesn't anybody claim the opposite? That 24:2 abrogated the stoning practice? Chapter 24 was revealed in Medina and only 12 chapters (465 verses) followed. The consensus, except for one report about Ash-Shaafii, is that the Quran can abrogate the Sunna. Of course it can! How can that even be a subject of discussion? God has corrected the Prophet, and once even reprimanded him, for things he said or did or failed to say or do, and those incidents are documented in the Quran. He was human and could make mistakes and change his mind, peace be upon him.

Al-Jabri provides an interesting angle in his book about Sunna-Quran abrogation. On page 57, he provides that standard argument that, per 2:106, the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran since it is not better than or similar to the Quran in that it cannot be used in place of the Quran in the prayers for example. He then argues that the Quran cannot aborgate the Sunna since


gives the Sunna the task of elaborating the Quran not vice versa.

While we are on the subject of Sunna-Quran abrogation, I wanted to discuss an issue that does not have an impact on the abrogation doctrine per se, but raises a question of fundamental nature. I read in Zaid's book (I can pin down the page and references if needed) that the circumstances of revelation of


was that a man went to the Prophet (PBUH) reporting that the man's wife committed adultery. Given the requirement of 4 witnesses to make such accusation per


and since 24:6 had not been revealed at the time, the Prophet said "The proof, or else the legal punishment in your back" (البينة أو حد في ظهرك) referring to the lashing penalty. After a back and forth the man appealed that God would reveal Quran to exonerate him, and 24:6 was revealed establishing اللعان protocol.

The point I am making is that if it is taken that anything that the Prophet (PBUH) said is Sunna, then this story would be a solid proof of the Quran abrogating the Sunna, in short time order for that matter. This may not be the only example of the Prophet (PBUH) facing a situation and perhaps expressing an opinion based on the existing Quran at the time, then getting overruled by a revelation of new verses. I have no idea how the scholars deal with these situations in terms of deciding which of what the Prophet (PBUH) said is inspired versus being human opinion.

That's right. I read the same story in Al-Areedh's book and it is also used for evidence that the Quran can and has abrogated the Sunna.


That is a discipline worthy of its own research

What's a scholar to do when he sees what he thinks is a contradiction between a hadeeth and a verse, assuming the hadeeth is authentic. Some scholars have ruled that the hadeeth wins, because the Prophet (PBUH) would not say something that contradicts the Quran without authority from God, so it must be a case of abrogation.

Others said that no hadeeth can rise to the authenticity status of the Quran. Even the most ubiquitous hadeeth (متواتر) has been narrated by a fraction of the multitude of people who memorized the Quran and taught it to countless others.

A stronger reason is an obvious one: the Quran was written down in is entirety during the life of the Prophet (PBUH), while the hadeeth was only transmitted orally. In fact, authentic hadeeths were narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) forbade people from writing the hadeeth, presumably to avoid mixing it with the Quran. The Hadeeth was not written down and authenticated in earnest until Al-Bukhaari's work in the third Hijri century!

And there is another, simple reason why no hadeeth can abrogate the Quran,

Here, God praises those who follow the best of discourse. So, if you see a verse and a hadeeth contradict each other, for the sake of argument, which do you follow? Which is the best of the two?

That goes double for conflict between a verse and what a scholar says, or what a multitude of scholars say.

Scholars who took the shortcut of claiming a hadeeth abrogated a verse when they perceived contradiction between the two that they could not resolve, should have done two things instead:

1. State that it must be the verse that abrogates the hadeeth, not the other way around.
2. Investigate the authenticity of the hadeeth and thus perhaps revise their views of its narrators.

Ihaab Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, page 34, gives examples of scholars who clearly believed and taught that the Sunna overrules the Quran!

• Ad-Daarimi has a chapter in his book سنن الدارمي entitled باب أن السنة قاضية على كتاب الله (Chapter: The Sunna rules over the Book of God)!
  
  
• Al-Awzaa`i was quoted in three books saying,
  
  السنة جاءت قاضية على الكتاب ولم يجئ الكتاب قاضيا على السنة
  
  Translation: The Sunna came as overruling the Book and the Book did not come as overruling the Sunna. Same quote was attributed to Yahya ibn Abi-Katheer.
  
  And he is also quoted saying, الكتاب أحوج إلى السنة من السنة إلى الكتاب (The Book needs the Sunna more than the Sunna needs the Book)! Same quote was attributed to Mak-hool Ash-Shaami.
  
  
• As-Suyooti quotes Abu-Nadhra claiming attribution to Abu-Sa`eed Al-Khudri saying, "Studying the Hadeeth is better than reading the Quran"! As-Suyooti also quotes Ash-Shaafi`i seemingly agreeing, saying, "That's because reading the Quran is voluntary, while preserving the Hadeeth is a "least" mandate (فرض كفاية), i.e., some must take it on but if they do, others don't have to.

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 84-85, mentions that Az-Zurqaani was an advocate of the notion that the Sunna can abrogate the Quran. Az-Zurqaani's evidence is

Which meant to him that the Hadeeth was also by revelation from God. `Ataaya refutes that. Indeed, many scholars have argued that it wasn't and many others have shown evidence that some of what the Prophet (PBUH) uttered was ordinary everyday talk and some of it he himself changed after hearing other people's opinions. Thus, 53:3-4 must mean the Quran in particular and many exegetes have said so, evidenced by the mention of Gabriel immediately afterward in 53:5. In Foundations parlance (الأصول), this is called عام أريد به الخاص (a generality intended for a specificity).

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 106-107, quotes Az-Zurqaani from his book مناهل العرفان arguing for abrogation this way: God commanded the Jews to kill themselves for worshiping the calf but later He rescinded and forbade them from killing themselves. The reference verse is

`Ataaya quickly points out that it was not God who gave that command but Moses. The proof is that God chastised the Jews for killing themselves after they have pledged to Him they wouldn't,

This highlights an important point: that a prophet may at times rule of his own opinion and not always by inspiration from God. Thus, unless the prophet says that God commanded him to say what he's saying, the possibility exists that he is speaking of his own volition. With that possibility always hanging, two conclusions can be made:

1. The Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran, without authentic, explicit words stating that it is an abrogation and that it is authorized by God,
2. The Quran can always abrogate the Sunna.

Certainly, the commander is the only one who can abrogate his commands, unless he delegates another to the task, but then the delegate must state that his decision to abrogate is authorized by his boss.

As I was reciting Chapters 15 and 16 tonight. I noticed how God calls the Quran the Remembrance,


And that got me thinking about


It must mean the Quran too, but what does the verse refer to when it says, "So that you may make clear to the people what has been sent down to them"?

I have read many interpretations of that clause. Some said that it refers to the Quran and that the Remembrance is the Hadeeth. Those scholars believe that the Hadeeth too was preserved by God and was sent down by God. If that interpretation is true, then the folks who believe that the Sunna can abrogate the Quran may have an argument. But the majority do not share that interpretation.

I only had to notice the verse immediately before it to understand what the clause means,


The clause means prior revelations! The Quran was sent down to explain to all people, especially the People of the Book, what they have differed on, which happened because they edited the Scriptures.

This view is supported later in


And all that is a prelude, I think, to the substitution verse, following in the same Chapter and often quoted as evidence for abrogation,


It's about the sign of the Quran replacing the signs of the Torah and Gospel in order to confirm what is original in them and correct what was edited or added to them. Confirmation and correction is what naskh is.

This become even clearer when one notices that prior scriptures, in their original form, have been called the Remembrance as well, e.g.,


Which most likely refers to the Torah.