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: 06 Feb 2010, 22:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

You can think of abrogation claims as prosecution, with the alleged victim a verse in the text of the Quran. The established juristic rule in Islamic court is البينة على من ادعى واليمين على من أنكر (The burden of proof is upon the claimant while the accused only has to swear innocence). No abrogation claim has or can be proven, because all "proofs" are mere opinions.

Quote:
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,

We kinda do that in the "Scholars opinions about abrogation" topic. Perhaps we can later split that topic into separate topics each dealing with one particular aspect of abrogation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2010, 22:59 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
We kinda do that in the "Scholars opinions about abrogation" topic. Perhaps we can later split that topic into separate topics each dealing with one particular aspect of abrogation.

You are right. I think cross referencing by linking to the relevant posts works well in these cases, since it is next to impossible to divide the subject into coherent topics without serious cross referencing.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2010, 13:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
The Criteria of Abdul-Qahir Al-Baghdady

Dr. Mostafa Zaid keeps citing the rigid criteria for abrogation by this scholar of the Shafeiy school. His name is Abu-Mansour Abdul-Qahir Ibn Tahir Al-Tamimi and he lived in Baghdad in the fifth Hijri century. He wrote a book called "The abrogating and the abrogated." For some reason, Dr. Zaid does not give a unified treatment of the criteria that Abdul-Qahir used, but keeps referring to them in bits and pieces all over the book. Anyway, I thought I should put a pointer to him in this thread. Three of the more elaborate places where he is cited in volume 1 of this book are

Item 442 on page 317: Where he fits in the history of abrogation.
Item 462 on page 331: Short synopsis of his book.
Item 504-515 on pages 356-362: Detailed synopsis of his book.

He is otherwise quoted in a number of footnotes, and his criteria are used prominently in the final chapter of the book (volume 2) where Zaid lists 5 abrogation cases of verses that he approves of.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Whether abrogation
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 02:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
الباب الرابع: باب شروط النسخ.

...


"، 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"

...

اختلفوا 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

Two points:

1. How come this hadeeth is not famous in the abrogation literature?

2. I read that the objections to abrogating a ruling before it was acted upon are based on fear that this would look too much like change of mind.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 02:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi defines naskh by defining its prerequisites. He writes in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن,

وأما شرائطه فمدارك معرفتها محصورة. منها أن يكون النسخ بخطاب، لأنه بموت المكلف ينقطع الحكم والموت مزيل للحكم لا ناسخ له. ومنها أن يكون المنسوخ أيضا حكما شرعيا، لأن الأمور العقلية التي مسندها البراءة الأصلية لم تنسخ وإنما ارتفعت بإيجاب العبادات.
ومنها أن لا يكون الحكم السابق مقيد بزمان مخصوص، نحو قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام لا صلاة في الصبح حتى تطلع الشمس ولا صلاة بعد العصر حتى تغرب الشمس، فإن الوقت الذي يجوز فيه أداء النوافل التي لا سبب لها مؤقتة فلا يكون نهيه عن هذه النوافل في الوقت المخصوص لما قبل ذلك من الجواز لأن التوقيت يمنع النسخ.
ومنها أن يكون الناسخ متراخيا عن المنسوخ وبيان النسخ منتهى الحكم، لتبدل المصلحة على اختلاف الأزمنة، كالطبيب ينهي عن الشيء في الصيف ثم يأمر به في الشتاء، وذلك كالتوجه إلى بيت المقدس بمكة وهو اختيار اليهود، وكإيجاب التصدق بالفضل عن الحاجة في الابتداء لنشاط القوم في الصفاء والوفاء، وكتقدير الواجب بربع العشر الفاضل إلى الانتهاء تيسيرا للأداء وصيانة لأهل النسخ من الاباء

He makes a number of points:
  1. Abrogation can only be by a command,
  2. The abrogated must also be a command,
  3. The command to abrogate cannot be timed,
  4. The abrogating command must come later than the abrogated one, and
  5. The language of the abrogating command must be final.

We've seen abrogation claims where his fourth point has been ignored, such as 2:234/2:240 and 33:50/33:52, both of which Ibn Hazm agrees with!

The last point he made is a new one and quite interesting. I can see it applied to cases such as 8:66/8:65, 73:20/73:1-4 and 33:52/33:50, except that most abrogators said 33:52 was the abrogated verse! After studying all claimed abrogation cases, I cannot find this "final language" in most of them. But, interestingly enough, the only final language I've consistently found is the language asserting that the Quran and its rulings are final.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Definition of abrogation
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 03:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
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.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 03:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
On pages 66-68 of his book, Al-Jabri lists rules of abrogation that other scholars have asserted, and argues that they have violated these rules in the very cases in which they claimed abrogation. He goes on to refute each rule in the sense of arguing that there are no cases that can possibly conform to the rule. At times, his reasoning is argumentative and technical, as his style has often been in this book. Here are the rules he lists as conditions for abrogation (validation rules in our terminology) and my commentary on Al-Jabri's views, where applicable.

  1. The abrogating must have been revealed after the abrogated. He argues that there is no ubiquitous hadeeth that tells us the order of the revelation of verses in the Quran and concludes that this rule cannot be ascertained for any claim. I find this to be an overkill. The order of revelation is a historical fact not a religious opinion. Therefore I can accept as evidence corroborated statements by people who were there at the time of revelation.

  2. The abrogated cannot be a statement of fact. He discusses this simple rule in an over-technical way.

  3. There has to be a conflict in the rulings of the two texts. He comments that he has not found a single conflict "in indication and ruling" as he exhaustively went through all the alleged abrogation claims. I think this will be the most useful part of the book. PS: It is not in the book (second edition), so it probably ws only in the first edition.

  4. The abrogated should not be bound by a known timing. He disagrees with Al-Asfahani who said that some rulings were timed, and asserts that nothing in the Quran is timed. I think he is using the "known" timing aspect. It is not clear why he added the "known" qualification to the rule, or why he is debating the applicability of the rule in the first place when the validity of the rule can only exclude abrogation claims.

  5. The abrogating has to mandate a knowledge and an action. Another overly technical point and dicussion.

  6. The abrogating should be lighter or equal than the abrogated. I do not recall seeing this as a rule in pro-abrogation literature.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 04:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The order of revelation is a historical fact not a religious opinion.

Exactly what the consensus of the scholars has been, that the order of chapters and verses is توقيفي meaning it does not follow any discernible rule; rather it was specified that way by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and he did not say why.

Quote:
The abrogating should be lighter or equal than the abrogated. I do not recall seeing this as a rule in pro-abrogation literature.[/list]

I'm guessing here, but maybe he was thinking of بخير منها أو مثلها (with what is better or similar to it) in 2:106. The argument was made that the abrogating may be harder than the abrogated and still be better because it offers more reward, for instance, or benefits more people, or stops more sin.

IMHO, the only valid validation rule ;) is whether the abrogated explicitly says it's abrogating and names what it abrogated. Our validation rule #0. That never happened in the Quran, but it did happen in the Sunna. Wills are contested in court if they do not explicitly say that they annul previous wills and are dated.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 21:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
One of the conditions of abrogation that were debated is whether the abrogated command has already been complied with by the time the abrogating command was given. Most scholars said that this not a requirement for an abrogation claim. Their evidence has been the story of Abraham when God ordered him to slaughter his only son Ishmael. The argument is that the command was only attempted, not actually done, when it was changed by God and replaced with the abrogating command of slaughtering a ram instead.

The isolationsts المعتزلة, such as Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani, stated that it is a requirement for a valid abrogation claim. Their argument is that saying otherwise leads to an impossibility: that a command was given, indicating that it is a good thing, then annulled, implying it's a bad thing, at the same time and place and for the same people, which cannot be.

The reason this discussion is relevant to the abrogation doctrine is because it is often an argument said in support of the abrogation claim of 58:13/58:12. Aside from the historical fact, supported by a number of sound hadeeths, that the command in 58:12 was indeed complied with by Ali, may God have been pleased with him, the isolationst argument is invalid because its assumption is incorrect. Professor Muhammad Al-Khudari, in his book أصول الفقه الإسلامي, page 257, wrote, and I certainly agree, that the command of slaughter was for testing of the faith of Abraham, not because slaughtering an innocent only son is a good thing. When Abraham (and Ishmael) proved their faith, peace be upon them, God sent the command He meant to send all along. The same argument applies to the mandate of 50 prayers during the ascension journey which was reduced to five before any Muslim could possibly comply with it.

Professor Al-Khudari reports that Abu-Haneefa (RA) accepted the condition that a command must be complied with before it can be abrogated. Abu-Haneefa's refutation of the argument citing the story of Abraham is brilliant. He said that a ransom is a replacement; if the mandate of slaughter was abrogated, no ransom would have been necessary.

As you can see, the debate has often be about semantics: What does naskh actually mean, and what constitutes abrogation. Many of the debates have been talks over each other's heads; each defining the problem differently.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Validation process
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 21:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
One of the conditions of abrogation that were debated is whether the abrogated command has already been complied with by the time the abrogating command was given. Most scholars said that this not a requirement for an abrogation claim. Their evidence has been the story of Abraham when God ordered him to slaughter his only son Ishmael.
...
Professor Muhammad Al-Khudari, in his book أصول الفقه الإسلامي, page 257, wrote, and I certainly agree, that the command of slaughter was for testing of the faith of Abraham, not because slaughtering an innocent only son is a good thing. When Abraham (and Ishmael) proved their faith, peace be upon them, God sent the command He meant to send all along. The same argument applies to the mandate of 50 prayers during the ascension journey which was reduced to five before any Muslim could possibly comply with it.
...
As you can see, the debate has often been about semantics: What does naskh actually mean, and what constitutes abrogation. Many of the debates have been talks over each other's heads; each defining the problem differently.

One more reason we should stick to the abrogation doctrine. The question is not whether commands could change. The question is whether the commands that had been changed were still included, unlabeled, in the text of the Quran.

The source of debate about the possibility of abrogation before a command is followed is the fear of "change of mind" applying in this case. I find that to be evidence that the attacks on abrogation by the enemies of Islam have gotten under the skin of some scholars. IMHO, it is entirely a non-issue. Al-Khudari's response is brilliant, and I wholeheartedly concur with him (I respectfully don't find Abu-Haneefa's response convincing). God tests His worshippers and interacts with them the way He sees fit. This is not change of mind. This is the best way to interact with human beings. The limitation is man's limitation not God's.

_________________
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 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 21 Feb 2020, 04:44

All times are UTC

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