TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Validation process http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2532 |
Page 6 of 6 |
Author: | Linguistic [ 15 Oct 2013, 19:59 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
In his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 7-8, Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani lists what he considers are conditions for a valid abrogation case. Among them are:
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 17 Oct 2013, 21:19 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Al-Hamdaani continues suggesting validation rules for preponderance, on page 11 of his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار. He suggests two interesting ones:
While these two points apply to preponderance in the Hadeeth, can either of them apply to abrogation in the Quran? I'd say yes, because a narration by someone trustworthy who said he heard from the Prophet that a verse has been abrogated, such narration would be a solid base for an abrogation claim. Guess what! That never happened |
Author: | Linguistic [ 20 Oct 2013, 20:02 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
One of the validation criteria for accepting one narration over another, writes Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, page 17, is that one evidence is a clear statement while the other is an implication. He cites the hadeeth that specifies the required Zakah (alms) out of sheep, "Out of every forty sheep one sheep." He says it contradicts the hadeeth, "The pen is lifted concerning three...a boy until he reaches puberty." He says that this latter implies that a boy is not addressed by religious commands and therefore is not required to pay Zakah on his sheep. He argues against that by saying that the boy's guardian is still addressed and therefore Zakah is required. While his conclusion may be correct, his argument has three problems IMHO:
All that being said, the validation criterion that implication is no basis for claiming abrogation is a valid criterion. I wish scholars did apply it uniformly. Many narrations which scholars cited for evidence only imply abrogation, because they use the word "naskh" which as we've shown many times may mean many other semantics. We've even shown how many opinions of scholars have been presented by other scholars as supporting an abrogation case, when in fact they were against it! |
Author: | Linguistic [ 21 Oct 2013, 20:19 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Al-Hamdaani suggests a preponderance rule, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, page 17, which is rather strange. He says that general text is taken over specific text. His argument is specificity "weakens" the generality. He added that many scholars have regarded specificity as a "figure of speech." Specificity does not weaken a generality; it specifies something that the generality does not apply to. That is akin to exception. That is also what most scholars of foundations have stated. No wonder why so many abrogation claims made by scholars were in reality very simple cases of specification. The notion of specification seems to elude Al-Hamdaani, because, on page 19, he gives an example for another preponderance suggestion he makes. His suggestion is that similar rulings in another matter give weight over different rulings. He cites the hadeeth, "there is no donation to be made (required alms) in less than five freights of dates." He says this is taken over the hadeeth, "In what the sky watered is one tenth." He says the reason for making this decision is the hadeeth: "There is no donation is less than five ounces of silver." He says the two rulings are similar. But the two rulings are for two different categories of property! Furthermore, the one-tenth hadeeth is general. It is made specific for date loads that are less than five freights. Where is the contradiction? If the sky irrigated your date crop, but the crop was less than five freights, then you are not required to give alms on it. If it is heavier than that, you are. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 28 Oct 2013, 05:04 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Validation process |
Linguistic wrote:
With all due respect to the esteemed author, a ruling being timed means that there comes a point in time when that ruling is no longer valid from that point on, not that the ruling that involves a timing component. For instance, the ruling that Ramadan should be fasted is not a timed ruling, although it addresses the timing of fasting. |
Page 6 of 6 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |