TheMostReadBook.org

Excellent point. I also noticed the context of 16:101 as I was reading the chapter yesterday (how come we read the same chapters on the same day? ), and I noticed that it supports the interpretation of 16:101 as the Quran substituting previous revelations, but I didn't see the 'Remembrance' angle. It makes sense to call the books of revelation, including the Quran, Remembrance since they remind people of what was lost, corrupted, or simply ignored.


I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Hadeeth was not particularly preserved.

The following hadeeth is well known, although its rating is in contention. Al-Bukhaari discredits it, but At-Tirmizhi, Abu-Daawood, Ibn Taymiya and others found it reasonably authentic. It is often cited as evidence of the importance of the Sunna in Islam. There is no question about that. I am citing it here as evidence that the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran. I'll explain shortly. Here is the hadeeth:

Translation:
When the Messenger of God wanted to send Mu`aazh ibn Jabal to Yemen, he asked him, "How would you judge when you are called to judge?" He said, "With the Book of God." The Prophet (PBUH) said, "And if you do not find [the answer there]?" He said, "Then by the Sunna of the Messenger of God." The Prophet (PBUH) said, "And if you do not find in either?" He said, "Then I deliberate on my own all I can." The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Thank God that He made fit the messenger of the Messenger of God to what pleases the Messenger of God."

The part I highlighted in italics above is proof that only when the answer is NOT in the Quran does a judge look for the answer in the Sunna. It follows then that if the answer IS in the Quran that no other source may be consulted! Thus, the Sunna, or anything else for that matter, is not allowed to abrogate the Quran.

Nice argument, supported by evidence. Explaining a verse using the sunna is one thing. Abrogating a verse using the sunna is a whole different thing. Reminds me of the Egyptian saying:

One example of hadeeth that may be viewed as abrogating a verse, is this authentic hadeeth, narrated by Abu-Hurayra and reported by Muslim,

Translation:
A man came to the Prophet (PBUH) and said to him, "See you if a man came wanting to take my money?" He said, "Don't give him your money!" He said, "What if he fought me?" He said, "Fight him!" He said, "What if he kills me?" He said, "Then you're a martyr." He said, "What if I killed him?" He said, "He's in Hell."

One may think that this hadeeth abrogates the prohibition of throwing oneself in a deadly situation,


The point of interest is whether a mugging situation is a deadly situation. It is clear from the hadeeth that it can be, so why did the Prophet (PBUH) advise the man to fight back? My humble answer to this is that the Prophet (PBUH) saw that the man is qualified to fight the mugger. Any armed fight such as that can result in the death of one of the fighters (or even both). In other words, it is a competent fight. Verse 2:195 does not talk about competent fights; it talks about one-sided confrontations. In such fights, death is almost certain. It is, therefore, a prelude to suicide. That is why it is forbidden.

Hence, there is no need to claim abrogation. This was an academic discussion, since no one made such claim anyway, as far as I know

I like your analysis. As they say "don't fight a losing battle."

In another post, excerpted below, I offer rationale for rejecting the notion of this topic,


As dear and venerable the Hadeeth is to us Muslims, 7:3 makes it clear that the Sunna shall not overrule the Quran. Knowing that the Prophet (PBUH) would never knowingly contradict the Quran, a hadeeth which ostensibly does can only be one of two things: (a) not authentic, or (b) abrogated by the Quran.

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 55, mentions Ash-Shaafi`i's simple evidence that the Sunna cannot abrogate the Quran,

While that is very clever, the scholars who believe otherwise do so because they consider the Sunna a revelation from God as well.

On page 56 of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, Dr. Husayn Nassaar addresses the question of whether the ubiquitous Sunna (المتواتر) may abrogate verses of the Quran. He says that scholars differed on it and that even the fellows of Mallik ibn Anas differed among themselves on it. Abul-Faraj was one of them who allowed it.

One evidence that many have used to back up this notion is

This verse is also commonly used for evidence that we must follow the Sunna. But the verse clearly talks about booty distribution, not about the Sunna or the Quran. It says to the Muslims at that time that they should accept how the Prophet (PBUH) distributes booty and not complain. They must also abstain from helping themselves to the booty.

Dr. Husayn Nassaar continues, on page 57 of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, propounding scholars opinions on this question. He says that Ath-Thawri (Sufyaan ibn Sa`d), Ash-Shaafi`i and one report from Ibn Hanbal reject the notion. Their evidence is 2:106's statement that the abrogator must be better than the abrogated.

Abu-Haneefa and Maalik accept the notion. Their evidence is

They said that naskh in reality is explaining the expiration of a ruling. 16:44, they argued, mandates acceptance of such explanation of expiration.

IMHO, this verse too is misunderstood. It assumes that الذكر (the Remembrance) is the Sunna. I submit that it means the Quran.

Recall that God has called the Torah the same name,

Thus, we must conclude that this name God gives to all of His scriptures. So, what does 16:44 mean then when it says, "so that you may explain to people what has been revealed to them"? IMHO, the operative word here is "people", i.e., all mankind. The Quran explains to all mankind what God's authentic message is, thus clearing all man-made additions and alterations to prior scriptures. Consider,

If people of old had not tampered with their scriptures, there would've been no need for the Quran.

Nice!