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: 30 Oct 2010, 15:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
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.
  • 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.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd followed a classification discipline in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم. He classified abrogation claims based on why they were invalid. I like that.

In volume 2, page 88 (item 814), he details the definition of specification after a generality (تخصيص العام) that the majority has accepted and so does he. He says that the specificity does not have to have been revealed at the same time as the generality and that all of the following are specifiers,
  • Exception, which is our validation rule #7.
  • Term (time limit), which is our validation rule #9.
  • Condition (contingency), which is our validation rule #10.
  • Attribute (qualification),
  • Partial apposition (بدل البعض من الكل)
The last two fall under our validation rule #11.

This is an excellent definition of specification and it helps the student recognize it in text.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 16 Dec 2010, 19:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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?

In his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 309 (item 1236), Dr. Mustafa Zayd mentions the verification process suggested by Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi, who said that there must be a word or phrase in the abrogating text that leads one to conclude abrogation. He gives three examples,

  1. الآن خفف الله عنكم (Now, God has eased on you) (8:66). That is evidence of easing, not of abrogation. It remains to be shown that easing is tantamount to abrogation. As shown in the discussion of the 8:66/8:65 claim and others, easing is not abrogation, but an an option to those who, for whatever reason, cannot comply with the harder requirement.

  2. علم الله أنكم كنتم تختانون أنفسكم فتاب عليكم (God knew that you were restricting yourselves, so He pardoned you) (2:187). That is not abrogation, but relief of a burden not initiaited by God! See the discussion of the 2:187/2:183 claim for details.

  3. فإذ لم تفعلوا وتاب الله عليكم (Now that you have not, and God has pardoned you) (58:13). That is not abrogation, but forgiveness of non-abidance by a strong recommendation from God. See the discussion of the 58:13/58:12 claim for details.

What Al-Baghdaadi should have said is that abrogation of a ruling from God cannot simply be guessed by what some word or phrase may or may not mean! Rather, it must be based on explicit, unambiguous statement that the old ruling is no more and the new ruling is replacing it. That never happened in the Quran.

In fact, Dr. Zayd, throughout his thesis, has made this exact argument in refuting many abrogation claims. I wish he had stuck to it. He would've naturally made the conclusion that the condition was never met and, as a result, the abrogation doctrine is false.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2010, 07:46 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1791
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In fact, Dr. Zayd, throughout his thesis, has made this exact argument in refuting many abrogation claims. I wish he had stuck to it. He would've naturally made the conclusion that the condition was never met and, as a result, the abrogation doctrine is false.

Not to mention how he handled the intoxication verses. There is no quesion in my mind that if he had no peer pressure, his conclusion would be different.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2011, 02:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
One more criterion occurred to me, and I'd like to add it to the list:

Do the two commands in the two verses carry the same force? That is, is one command a mandate and the other a recommendation or allowance, or is one command a prohibition and the other is a discouragement or allowance?

If the two commands have different forces, the claim of abrogation may be valid.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2011, 23:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1791
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
One more criterion occurred to me, and I'd like to add it to the list:

Do the two commands in the two verses carry the same force? That is, is one command a mandate and the other a recommendation or allowance, or is one command a prohibition and the other is a discouragement or allowance?

If the two commands have different forces, the claim of abrogation may be valid.

It made sense to me until I read the last sentence, and I couldn't follow the logic.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2011, 04:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
It made sense to me until I read the last sentence, and I couldn't follow the logic.

Sorry. I should've elaborated. What I meant was that the subject is the same but not the force of the command. Say one verse forbids X and another only discourages it. That would merit a claim of abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 17:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
In his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, Al-Haazimi Al-Hamadaani lists fifty criteria for reconciliation between conflicting texts! In each criterion, he offers his or consensus conclusion of which text is to be accepted and which text to be set aside. I'm sorry to say that many of those conclusions are hasty and some are illogical. God willing and time permitting, I will discuss them in some detail in the Deduction Methods forum.

Of particular interest to this topic is his criterion 27 on page 15:

Muhammad ibn Moosa Al-Haazimi Al-Hamadaani wrote:
The Twenty Seventh Criterion: That one text agrees more with the apparent meaning of a Quranic verse than the other. Then the one that agrees more is the one to take.

The example he cites for this criterion is interesting! He cites the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH), reported by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim and many others, in which he says, "Whoever oversleeps or forgets a prayer, let him pray it when he remembers it, as this is its time." He says that this hadeeth contradicts the prohibition from the Prophet (PBUH) to pray at certain times. He says that the former hadeeth agrees more with the Quran, such as,

Thus, one would conclude from his argument that praying during the forbidden times is allowed if that is when a person wakes up from sleep. For instance, one took an afternoon nap and woke up twenty minutes before sunset. That is a start of a forbidden time. So, does he pray Asr or not. Al-Hamadaani says he does. I certainly agree.

Al-Hamadaani correctly lists these criteria under the heading "Criteria for preponderance" (وجوه الترجيح). However, I respectfully disagree that preponderance is a tool for concluding abrogation of Quranic text, because no text remotely carries the weight of Quranic text.

BTW, I highlighted in the hadeeth quote above the words "as this is its time" because the consensus of scholars has been that missed mandatory prayers cannot be made up! This hadeeth proves that not only they can but they must be! The main argument of the consensus is that prayer is timed,


But that verse does not say what to do when the time is missed. The hadeeth does. The consensus has been that the hadeeth only gives allowance for involuntary missing of the prayer, not deliberate negligence. I respectfully disagree. The hadeeth gives examples of reasons for missing a prayer, not an exhaustive list of reasons. The highlighted words make it clear that the time of the prayer can be stretched. This does not mean that we have a license to pray anytime; it simply gives us a way to make up for neglecting a mandate. The consensus opinion robs Muslims from that opportunity which the Prophet (PBUH) gave them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2013, 22:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
منها أن يكون النسخ بخطاب، لأنه بموت المكلف ينقطع الحكم والموت مزيل للحكم لا ناسخ له.

This seems like an interesting rule that I don't quite understand.

This would be an excellent rebuttal to scholars such as Dr. Mustafa Zayd, who maintained that Naskh means removal (إزالة) only, with or without a replacement.

As discussed at length in other posts, Naskh is a heteronym; removal and substitution are only two of its many meanings. Limiting the word to one or two of its meanings only is uncalled for and unsubstantiated unless one is trying desperately to defend the abrogation doctrine.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 13:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 61, tells of Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri's abrogation validation rules. He saw four of them:

  1. Full consensus of scholars, without one dissension. We don't have that rule. Should we add it?

  2. Two commands that cannot be complied with together and one of them came after the other. This combines our validation rules numbers 6 and 13.

  3. An explicit statement that a command has been abrogated. This is our validation rule number 0.

  4. A clear prohibition after a clear mandate or vice versa. We don't have this rule.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2013, 13:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4442
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 40, presents these validation rules offered by Ibn Al-Jawzi in his book المصفى بأكف أهل الرسوخ في علم الناسخ والمنسوخ, pages 12-13:

  • That the rulings in the abrogator and the abrogated are contradictory such that they cannot be complied with together. This is our validation rule #13.

  • That the abrogated was issued before the abrogator. This is our validation rule #6. Scholars have violated this rule a number of times, most blatantly in two cases many of them approve, i.e., 2:234/2:240 and 33:50/33:52.

  • That the ruling of the abrogated has been established by Islamic law, not by custom or convention. This is an extension of our validation rule #1. Our validation rule is specific to the Quran because we are focusing on abrogation in the Quran in this project.

  • That the ruling of the abrogator has been established by a narration. This is an extension of our validation rule #2. Again, ours is focused only on the Quran.

    Some scholars violated this rule, as shown in this post.

  • That the authenticity of the abrogator equals or exceeds that of the abrogated. This is similar to our validation rule #2.

    Some scholars violated this rule; those who believed that the Sunna, consensus or analysis may abrogate a verse.

Dr. Faaris adds that other rules have been mentioned by scholars , but that they are not in agreement about them, implying, I suppose, that the above list is agreed on by all. If so, I'm glad, because, as we have shown in this study, no abrogation claim passes the above list!

_________________
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 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 19 Aug 2017, 01:42

All times are UTC

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