TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Validation process http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2532 |
Page 4 of 6 |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 13 May 2010, 05:05 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 13 May 2010, 18:30 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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, 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. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 13 May 2010, 23:35 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Linguistic wrote:
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 23 May 2010, 19:47 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Linguistic wrote:
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! |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 28 May 2010, 03:33 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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.
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 05 Jun 2010, 03:48 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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:
|
Author: | Pragmatic [ 05 Jun 2010, 03:54 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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:
This is a good 'closing argument' in the legal case! |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 16 Jun 2010, 06:27 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
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.
|
Author: | Pragmatic [ 22 Jun 2010, 02:17 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Linguistic wrote:
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 25 Sep 2010, 15:13 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Linguistic wrote:
As I mentioned in this post, there are three causes that drove people to claim abrogation:
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. |
Page 4 of 6 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |