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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Validation process
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 08:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Admin note: This topic was split from the "Origins of the abrogation doctrine" topic, which is meant to discuss the validity of abrogation in principle, not case by case. Here we want to discuss a methodology or an algorithm that can be applied to each case in order to validate or refute it.

Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Per your point #2, Pragmatic, I'd like to develop a discipline, perhaps in the form of a checklist, that we systemically apply to each claim. Only cases that pass through the entire checklist can be verified as credible.

There is such a checklist developed by none other than the scholars who believe in abrogation. There are 5 conditions listed at the top of page 3 of (the Internet copy of) نواسخ القرآن لابن الجوزي as well as similar conditions listed in the other references. Could you please cut and paste that part for completeness? (I could not do it on my system)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whether abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 17:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
There is such a checklist developed by none other than the scholars who believe in abrogation. There are 5 conditions listed at the top of page 3 of (the Internet copy of) نواسخ القرآن لابن الجوزي as well as similar conditions listed in the other references. Could you please cut and paste that part for completeness? (I could not do it on my system)

Here it is. I did quote a part of it in another post under the "definition of abrogation" topic.
Quote:
الباب الرابع: باب شروط النسخ.
الشروط المعتبرة في ثبوت النسخ خمسة:
الشرط الأول أن يكون الحكم في الناسخ والمنسوخ متناقضا بحيث لا يمكن العمل بهما جميعا، فإن كان ممكنا لم يكن أحدهما ناسخا للآخر. وذلك قد يكون على وجهين: الوجه الأول أن يكون أحد الحكمين متناولا لما تناوله الثاني بدليل العموم والآخر متناولا لما تناوله الأول بدليل الخصوص. فالدليل الخاص لا يوجب نسخ دليل العموم، بل يبين أنه إنما تناوله التخصيص لم يدخل تحت دليل العموم. والوجه الثاني أن يكون كل واحد من الحكمين ثابتا في حال غير الحال التي ثبت فيها الحكم الآخر، مثل تحريم المطلقة ثلاثا فإنها محرمة على مطلقها في حال وهي ما دامت خالية عن زوج وإصابة فإذا أصابها زوج ثان ارتفعت الحالة الأولى وانقضت بارتفاعها مدة التحريم فشرعت في حالة أخرى حصل فيها حكم الإباحة للزوج المطلق ثلاثا، فلا يكون هذا ناسخا لاختلاف حالة التحريم والتحليل.
والشرط الثاني أن يكون الحكم المنسوخ ثابتا قبل ثبوت حكم الناسخ فذلك يقع بطريقتين: أحدهما من جهة النطق كقوله تعالى "الآن خفف الله عنكم وعلم أن فيكم ضعفا" وقوله "فتاب عليكم وعفا عنكم فالآن باشروهن". ومثل قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم "كنت نهيتكم عن زيارة القبور ألا فزروها". والثاني أن يعلم بطريق التاريخ، وهو أن ينقل بالرواية بأن يكون الحكم الأول ثبوته متقدما على الآخر، فمتى ورد الحكمان مختلفين على وجه لا يمكن العمل بأحدهما إلا بترك الآخر ولم يثبت تقديم أحدهما على صاحبه بأحد الطريقين امتنع ادعاء النسخ في أحدهما.
والشرط الثالث أن يكون الحكم المنسوخ مشروعا، أعني أنه ثبت بخطاب الشرع فأما إن كان ثابتا بالعادة والتعارف لم يكن رافعه ناسخا بل يكون ابتداء شرع، وهذا شيء ذكر عند المفسرين فإنهم قالوا كان الطلاق في الجاهلية لا إلى غاية فنسخه قوله "الطلاق مرتان"، وهذا لا يصدر ممن يفقه لأن الفقيه يفهم أن هذا ابتداء شرع لا نسخ.
والشرط الرابع أن يكون ثبوث الحكم الناسخ مشروعا كثبوت المنسوخ، فأما ما ليس بمشروع بطريق النقل فلا يجوز أن يكون ناسخا للمنقول. ولهذا إذا ثبت حكم منقول لم يجز نسخه بإجماع ولا بقياس.
والشرط الخامس أن يكون الطريق الذي ثبت به الناسخ مثل الطريق الذي ثبت به المنسوخ أو أقوى منه، فأما إن كان دونه فلا يجوز ان يكون الأضعف ناسخا للأقوى.

الباب الخامس: باب ذكر ما اختلف فيه هل هو شرط في النسخ أم لا.
اتفق العلماء على جواز نسخ القرآن بالقرآن والسنة بالسنة فأما نسخ القرآن بالسنة فالسنة تنقسم قسمين: القسم الأول ما ثبت بنقل متواتر كنقل القرآن، فهل يجوز أن ينسخ القرآن بمثل هذا؟ حكى فيه شيخنا علي بن عبيد الله روايتين عن أحمد قال والمشهور أنه لا يجوز، وهو مذهب الثوري والشافعي. والرواية الثانية يجوز وهو قول أبي حنيفة ومالك. قال ووجه الأولى قوله تعالى " ما ننسخ من آية أو ننسها نأت بخير منها أو مثلها"، والسنة ليست مثلا للقرآن. وروى الدارقطني من حديث جابر ابن عبد الله قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم "كلامي لا ينسخ القرآن ينسخ بعضه بعضا". ومن جهة المعنى فإن السنة تنقص عن درجة القرآن فلا تقدم عليه. ووجه الرواية الثانية قوله تعالى "وأنزلنا إليك الذكر لتبين للناس ما نزل إليهم". والنسخ في الحقيقة بيان مدة المنسوخ، فاقتضت هذه الآية قبول هذا البيان. قال وقد نسخت "الوصية للوالدين والأقربين" بقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم "لاوصية لوارث"، ونسخ قوله تعالى "ولا تقاتلوهم عند المسجد الحرام حتى يقاتلوكم فيه" بأمره عليه الصلاة والسلام أن يقتل ابن خطل وهو متعلق بأستار الكعبة. ومن جهة المعنى أن السنة مفسرة للقرآن وكاشفة لما يغمض من معناه، فجاز أن ينسخ بها. والقول الأول هو الصحيح لأن هذه الأشياء تجري مجرى البيان للقرآن لا النسخ. وقد روى أبو داود السجستاني قال سمعت أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه يقول السنة تفسر القرآن ولا ينسخ القرآن إلا القرآن، وكذلك قال الشافعي إنما ينسخ الكتاب الكتاب والسنة ليست ناسخة له.
والقسم الثاني الأخبار المنقولة بنقل الآحاد فهذه لا يجوز بها نسخ القرآن لأنها لاتوجب العلم بل تفيد الظن، والقرآن يوجب العلم فلايجوز ترك المقطوع به لأجل مظنون. وقد احتج من رأى جواز نسخ التواتر بخبر الواحد بقصة أهل قباء لما استداروا بقول واحد فأجيب بأن قبلة بيت المقدس لم تثبت بالقرآن فجاز أن تنسخ بخبر الواحد.
فصل: واتفق العلماء على جواز نسخ نطق الخطاب واختلفوا في نسخ ما ثبت بدليل الخطاب وتنبيهه وفحواه فذهب عامة العلماء إلى جواز ذلك واستدلوا بشيئين: أحدهما أن دليل الخطاب دليل شرعي يجري مجرى النطق في وجوب العمل به فجرى مجراه في النسخ، والثاني أنه قد وجد ذلك. فروى جماعة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال الماء من الماء وعملوا بدليل خطابه فكانوا لا يغتسلون من التقاء الختانين، ثم نسخ ذلك بقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام إذا التقى الختان بالختان وجب الغسل أنزل أو لم ينزل. وقد حكى عن جماعة من أهل الظاهر أنه لا يجوز نسخ ما ثبت بدليل الخطاب وفحواه قالوا لأن ذلك معلوم بطريق القياس والقياس لا يكون ناسخا ولا منسوخا، وليس الأمر على ما ذكر بل هو مفهوم من معنى النطق وتنبيهه.
فصل: واتفق العلماء على أن الحكم المأمور به إذا عمل به ثم نسخ بعد ذلك أن النسخ يقع صحيحا جائزا واختلفوا هل يجوز نسخ الحكم قبل العمل به فظاهر كلام أحمد جواز ذلك وهو اختيار عامة أصحابنا، وكان أبو الحسن التميمي يقول لا يجوز ذلك وهو قول أصحاب أبي حنيفة. واحتج الأولون بأن الله تعالى أمر إبراهيم بذبح ولده ثم نسخ ذلك بالفداء قبل فعله، وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فرض عليه وعلى أمته ليلة المعراج خمسون صلاة ثم نسخ ذلك بخمس صلوات. ومن جهة المعنى فإن الأمر بالشيء يقع فيه تكليف الإيمان به والاعتقاد له ثم تكليف العزم على فعله في الزمان الذي عين له ثم إذا فعل على الوجه المأمور به، فجاز أن ينسخ قبل الأداء لأنه لم يفقد من لوازمه غير الفعل والنية نائبة عنه. واحتج من منع من ذلك بأن الله تعالى إنما يأمر عباده بالعبادة لكونها حسنة فإذا أسقطها قبل فعلها خرجت عن كونها حسنة وخروجها قبل الفعل يؤدي إلى البداء. وهذا كلام مردود بما بينا من الإيمان والامتثال والعزم يكفي في تحصيل المقصود من التكليف بالعبادة

Yes, it's a good checklist to start with. I want it complete though.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whether abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2010, 20:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Here it is. I did quote a part of it in another post under the "definition of abrogation" topic.

Thank you. The last part of the cut-and-paste addresses the opinions about Sunna abrogating Quran, and there is a thread that addresses this subject. The first part covers the 5 conditions the scholars came up with to decide whether a ruling was abrogated by another ruling. You summarized these conditions in the post you refer to, and I include my own articulation of these conditions below.

The scholars focussed on abrogating a ruling rather than a verse, implicitly excluding non-ruling verses from the possibility of being abrogated, but also widening the scope of discussion to rulings that are not included in verses and opening the possibility of abrogating a ruling (or part of a verse) without abrogating the whole verse, a possibility that I have reservations about per my post. Here is my articulation of the 5 conditions.

(1) The rulings in the abrogated and abrogating verses have to be contradictory in such a way that one cannot apply them together. If one can, then neither abrogates the other, and this can manifest itself in two ways. First, one of the rulings is addressing what the other ruling addressed, but in a more general setting or a more specific setting. A specific setting does not require abrogating the general setting. Rather, it clarifies that the ruling in a specific instance is not covered by the general setting. Second, one of the rulings applies to a case that the other ruling does not apply to.

(2) The abrogated ruling must have occurred chronologically before the abrogating ruling. This can be established in two ways, either by inference from the text (as in "Now God has eased it on you and knew that there is weakness in you" ), or by knowledge of the historical timeline that establishes that the first ruling came about earlier than the second ruling. Even if two rulings cannot be reconciled, there has to be a proof of which one came first, otherwise a claim of abrogation of either of them would be void.

(3) The abrogated ruling must be explicit in a text. If the ruling is established just by custom or consensus, then an explicit ruling that overrules it would not be abrogating it per se, but rather establishing a ruling in the first place.

(4) The confidence in the abrogating ruling must be as well established as the abrogated ruling. An explicit ruling cannot be abrogated just by a consensus opinion or an analytic conclusion.

(5) The authenticity of the abrogating ruling must be at least as strong as the authenticity of the abrogated ruling. If it is weaker, it cannot abrogate something stronger.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 07:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Based on the information posted so far, let me start proposing an algorithm for the validation of an abrogation case,

  • 0. Is there a direct statement from God or His Messenger that the verse is abrogated? If so, it is abrogated regardless of all the remaining rules, here or elsewhere and you can ignore the rest of the rules below. If not, then continue checking out the following rules.
  • 1. Is the abrogated text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not, the discussion is irrelevant to the scope of this project.
  • 2. Is the abrogating text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not the case is invalid since nothing can abrogate the Quran, if anything would, but the Quran.
  • 3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.
  • 4. Is the abrogating verse other than the abrogated verse? If not, the case is invalid. Self abrogation is invalid per 2:106.
  • 5. Is the abrogation claim total? If not, it's invalid. A verse can either be abrogated in its entirety or not abrogated in its entirety. There is no partial abrogation of a verse, per 2:106.
  • 6.Was the abrogating verse revealed after the abrogated verse?
  • 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.

Please add to the list and suggest where in the list your suggestion should be. I'll maintain it based on your suggestions.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 08:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Very nice!

It will be useful to attach opinions of credible scholars to any of these points that they agree with.

Since Shah Waliullah (see this post) seems to be the scholar on the side of abrogation with the minimal set of abrogated verses, it will be useful to understand his reasoning since his criteria for abrogation are likely to be more stringent than those of other scholars.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 09:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
  • 1. Is the abrogated text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not, the discussion is irrelevant to the scope of this project.
  • 2. Is the abrogating text a verse in the text of the Quran? If not the case is invalid since nothing can abrogate the Quran, if anything would, but the Quran.
  • 3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.
  • 4. Is the abrogating verse other than the abrogated verse? If not, the case is invalid. Self abrogation is invalid per 2:106.
  • 5. Is the abrogation claim total? If not, it's invalid. A verse can either be abrogated in its entirety or not abrogated in its entirety. There is no partial abrogation of a verse, per 2:106.
  • 6. Was the abrogating verse revealed after the abrogated verse?
  • 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.

Excellent list and organization; 1-6 exclude abrogation based on objective criteria, 7-12 exclude abrogation based on subjective criteria, and 13 excludes abrogation based on "benefit of the doubt." Possible overlap between these points is not a problem, since all are simultaneously required in order to accept an abrogation case. For instance, 4 and 5 have overlap, and so do 12 and 13 as you pointed out.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2010, 04:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
As-Suyooti reports another criteria,
قال ابن الحصار إنما يرجع في النسخ إلى نقل صريح عن رسول الله، أو عن صحابي يقول آية كذا نسخت كذا.
قال وقد يحكم به عند وجود التعارض المقطوع به من علم التاريخ، ليعرف المتقدم والمتأخر.
قال ولا يعتمد في النسخ قول عوام المفسرين، بل ولا اجتهاد المجتهدين من غير نقل صحيح ولا معارضة بينة، لأن النسخ يتضمن رفع حكم وإثبات حكم تقرر في عهده، والمعتمد فيه النقل والتاريخ دون الرأي والاجتهاد.
قال والناس في هذا بين طرفي نقيض، فمن قائل لا يقبل في النسخ أخبار الآحاد العدول، ومن متساهل يكتفي فيه بقول مفسر أو مجتهد.
والصواب خلاف قولهما

Ibn Al-Hasaar said that abrogation cases must be based on an explicit narration tracing back to the Messenger of God or to a Sahaabi saying, "Verse such and such abrogated that other verse." He said that opinions of scholars should not be a basis because abrogation rescinds a ruling and fixes another. That has to be decided by authentic reports and knowledge of sequence of events, history, not on opinion and analysis.

He also highlights how scholars have been different in how strict they are; some say that authentic reports narrated by only a few are not eligible evidence for abrogation, while others have been liberal and would accept the opinion of a scholar.

Should we include any of this in the validation checklist?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2010, 05:51 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
As-Suyooti reports another criteria,
إنما يرجع في النسخ إلى نقل صريح عن رسول الله، أو عن صحابي يقول آية كذا نسخت كذا. قال وقد يحكم به عند وجود التعارض المقطوع به من علم التاريخ، ليعرف المتقدم والمتأخر

Interesting find. Here is the translation of the part that I quoted from Ibn Al-Hasaar's opinion, building on your translation. The rest of the opinion is just saying that scholarly opinions are not enough to make an abrogation claim.

In abrogation, things should be based on an explicit narration tracing back to the Messenger of God, or to a Sahaabi (companion of the Prophet) saying "Verse such and such abrogated that other verse." Abrogation may also be ruled when there is irrefutable contradiction with knowledge of the timeline to identify which verse came before which.

The opinion shows how people struggle with the abrogation notion and try to strike a balance between the gravity of declaring a verse abrogated and their belief that such verses exist. In this quote, the first part of the criterion (explicit narration from the Prophet PBUH) never occurred for cases of abrogation in the text of the Quran. The second part of narration from a Sahaabi (that is not attributing the abrogation statement back to the Prophet) is controversial even if the narration is authentic, since the abrogation statement in this case would be an opinion, and even Sahaabis (may God be pleased with them) are not infallible in their opinions and we are talking about overruling the Quran here.

Linguistic wrote:
Should we include any of this in the validation checklist?

It seems to me that the criteria of Ibn Al-Hasaar are a conservative alternative to the criteria we have in the checklist, rather than being additional criteria. Maybe these are the criteria that Shah Waliullah used to come up with his reduced list of 5 abrogation cases? Of course the part about "irrefutable contradiction" in Ibn Al-Hasaar's opinion will be subject to who makes that judgment.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2010, 01:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
3. Is the abrogated verse a statement of fact (semantically, not just syntactically)? Then it cannot be abrogated.

The basis for this rule was mentioned in this post. In the interpretation of the Quran by Ibn Katheer, the commentary on 2:106 by Ibn Jareer mentions the scope of abrogation and excludes statements of fact from it. Here is the quote

Linguistic wrote:
:تفسير ابن كثير
.......
وقال ابن جرير "ما ننسخ من آية" ما ينقل من حكم آية إلى غيره فنبدله ونغيره وذلك أن يحول الحلال حراما والحرام حلالا والمباح محظورا والمحظور مباحا ولا يكون ذلك إلا في الأمر والنهي والحظر والإطلاق والمنع والإباحة فأما الأخبار فلا يكون فيها ناسخ ولا منسوخ

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2010, 20:02 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
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.

This seems to be the rule most often violated in the abrogation claims. In modern terms, it says that abrogation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because it is argumentative in nature, I suggest that we discuss the rule in detail in a separate section and cite all the scholars who support it and discuss their elaboration, and perhaps give examples of verses that have never been considered abrogated but might be if that rule was violated, in order to underline the importance of the rule. This way, when we invoke the rule, we can refer to that section instead of making petty arguments in individual cases.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 26 Jun 2017, 15:37

All times are UTC

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