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  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 13 May 2010, 05:05 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
In his book, Nada discusses on pages 34-36 the validation process devised by Sheikh Abd-Al'azeem Al-Zurqani. The process is pretty strict, and it draws praise from Nada who laments that Al-Zurqani himself did not follow it when he declared certain verses in the Quran abrogated.

One point Al-Zurqani makes is that a narration by a Sahabi that verse so and so abrogated verse such and such cannot be taken as evidence of abrogation since it could be a mere opinion.

I think that one of our key arguments should be that the rules set by the pro-abrogation scholars themselves preclude the abrogation claims that have been made, and we should spell out specific statements and specific claims that contradict each other from a number of key scholars. This way it is not our opinion, but theirs.

BTW, this is my 1000th post. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 13 May 2010, 18:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I think that one of our key arguments should be that the rules set by the pro-abrogation scholars themselves preclude the abrogation claims that have been made, and we should spell out specific statements and specific claims that contradict each other from a number of key scholars. This way it is not our opinion, but theirs.

BTW, this is my 1000th post. :)

Congratulations on your 1000th post! Thank you for your valuable, insightful contributions to this and the other forums of this board.

We point out the inconsistency of stated opinions in two topics,

  1. Inconsistencies
    And
  2. Missing abrogation claims

In addition, we have in each claim, a post entitled "Who said what", stating who agreed with the claim and who disagreed. The fact that every abrogation claim has been contested by knowledgeable, pious, licensed scholars is proof of the fallacy of the doctrine.

You will also notice that as we continue to find new books about the subject, we keep finding scholars who arrived at the same conclusion we made long before us! I think you once said that the less original we are the more credible we will be :) You are right.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 13 May 2010, 23:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • 13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

The essence of this rule is where the burden of proof lies. In his book, Nada discusses on pages 36-37 how Sheikh Abd-Al'azeem Al-Zurqani articulates this aspect in his book "مناهل العرفان" (which Nada quotes a lot) by saying that the default in rulings is their staying not their abrogation, so one has to have clear evidence دليل بين to let go of that default.

Although it is not explicit in these words, whenever one side has the burden to prove something, the other side gets the counter role of raising a level of doubt, since doubt deprives a proof of its validity. Rule 13 above addresses that counter role of raising doubt, and that's why we only need plausible reconciliation of the verses rather than a solid proof that such reconciliation is the valid interpretation.

I discuss a similar argument about the burden of proof in interpreting 2:106 and 16:101 in another post.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 23 May 2010, 19:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • 6.Was the abrogating verse revealed after the abrogated verse?

In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 66, Al-Jabri argues that this condition can never be determined, because the order of revelation is uncertain; the hadeeths that tell about it are all narrated by a few (آحاد) and therefore cannot be relied on to determine a fundamental issue such as this.

I'd agree with him, though I feel comfortable about the order agreed to by the consensus. And taking his point further, if the order of revelation is not certain, then what is claimed to be abrogating could be the abrogated text!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 28 May 2010, 03:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
On pages 234-235 of his book, Ihab lists 7 conditions for abrogation that prevailed in the era of later scholars, without citing a specific source.

  1. Abrogation is a right of God alone, so the abrogation claim has to be referred back to Him.

  2. Abrogation requires a substitute of the same level as what is abrogated.

  3. The abrogated must have been acted upon.

  4. The abrogating must come later than the abrogated.

  5. The abrogated must be a juristic ruling.

  6. A ruling that modifies the "default allowance" (original innocence) is not abrogation.

  7. Abrogation is total removal of the previous ruling, so it does not include specialization, restriction, etc.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 03:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, at the end of his excellent book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 434-436, propounds the reasons why the abrogation doctrine is false. His points are:

  • No explicit verse in the Quran stating that one verse abrogated another.
  • No ubiquitous authentic hadeeth stating explicitly that one verse abrogated another.
  • No consensus of the Sahaaba or their followers stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another.
  • No ubiquitous authentic report from any of the inscribers of revelation stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another. Az-Zalmi noted that if anybody would know, they should.
  • No ubiquitous authentic report from any of the binders of the Quran stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another.
  • No pro-abrogation scholar has ever quoted any of the inscribers of the Quran.
  • For every abrogation claim, there are reasonable, founded arguments to refute it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2010, 03:54 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. Az-Zalmi, at the end of his excellent book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 434-436, propounds the reasons why the abrogation doctrine is false. His points are:

  • No explicit verse in the Quran stating that one verse abrogated another.
  • No ubiquitous authentic hadeeth stating explicitly that one verse abrogated another.
  • No consensus of the Sahaaba or their followers stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another.
  • No ubiquitous authentic report from any of the inscribers of revelation stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another. Az-Zalmi noted that if anybody would know, they should.
  • No ubiquitous authentic report from any of the binders of the Quran stating explicitly that a verse abrogated another.
  • No pro-abrogation scholar has ever quoted any of the inscribers of the Quran.
  • For every abrogation claim, there are reasonable, founded arguments to refute it.

This is a good 'closing argument' in the legal case!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2010, 06:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Al-Zalmi asserts that there are exactly 4 conditions, 'without a fifth', for abrogation in the Quran, something he has concluded after 60 years of study. He discusses them on pages 33-41 of his book. Here are the highlights of the 4 conditions.

  1. Certainty that what is abrogated and what is abrogating is indeed in the Quran. (This restricts the notion to the abrogation doctrine as we defined it بين دفتي المصحف).

  2. Proof that the abrogating was revealed after the abrogated. Al-Zalmi discusses the burden of proof for abrogation in general under this condition.

  3. What is claimed to be abrogated must be abrogatable. He talks about the exclusion of statements of fact, etc.

  4. Contradiction between the abrogated and the abrogating. He distinguishes explicit abrogation, where an explicit statement declares that something has been abrogated, from implicit abrogation, where abrogation is inferred from a contradiction (which is part of our definition of the abrogation doctrine). He states that there are no examples in the Quran of explicit abrogation. He elaborates, in every last detail, the requirements for what would constitute a contradiction for the purpose of implicit abrogation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 02:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • 13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

On page 62 of On page 60 of his book, Al-Zalmi states in item 6 that there is consensus among originalists, exegetes, and scholars that abrogation is resorted to only if reconciliation between the two texts was not possible, which is the crux of the quoted rule #13. The contradiction-based approach to abrogation is part of the dogma that we label the abrogation doctrine, and I think we can quote Al-Zalmi to show that it is an integral part of the dogma. Of course we have a number of other quotes here and there by different scholars to this effect, but it is helpful to have an established scholar state that it is consensus in so many words.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2010, 15:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • 7. Was the abrogation in fact an exemption? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.
  • 8. Was the abrogation in fact another option? If it was, it's not abrogation but a completion of the specification of a ruling.
  • 9. Does the abrogated verse specify a time limit for its ruling? If it does, it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse came before the expiration of the time limit.
  • 10. Does the abrogated verse specify a contingency for its ruling? If it does, then it can only be abrogated if the abrogating verse does not meet the conditions of the contingency.
  • 11. Does the abrogated verse specify something particular and the abrogating verse made it general? If so, that's not abrogation because that adds scope. It would be abrogation if the scope was narrowed.
  • 12. Do the two verses speak of two different circumstances, or two different people? If so, they are complementary and no abrogation can be claimed.
  • 13. Is there any explanation by way of logical, historical, linguistic or other means that can show that the two verses are not contradictory and can actually be complied to together? If so, the claim of abrogation is unnecessary.

As I mentioned in this post, there are three causes that drove people to claim abrogation:

  1. Failure to interpret the verse.
  2. Separating the verse from its context.
  3. Inability to relate a verse to other verses that address the same issue.

The above quoted validation rules are often the way to resolve these barriers, therefore refuting an abrogation claim. Pro-abrogation scholars have agreed that abrogation may only be claimed if such reconciling effort fails.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 20 Oct 2017, 14:25

All times are UTC

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