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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 13 Sep 2010, 16:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Just to clarify, the part about Ibn Masseoud and Al-Tabari is something the author mentioned? I am just trying to see if our observation about the companions of Ibn Masseoud has been noted by others.

The author quotes At-Tabari from his exegesis saying that it was the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood who introduced the notion of ruling being separate from verse. At-Tabari agrees with them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2010, 02:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The author quotes At-Tabari from his exegesis saying that it was the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood who introduced the notion of ruling being separate from verse. At-Tabari agrees with them.

Fantastic! We are not alone in that fundamental observation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2010, 17:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Jamaal `Ataaya ... argues that the central issue behind the revelation of 2:106 (and 16:101) is the event of the Qibla change-over. Because of that, he devotes the next pages 325-363 to analyzing this event and he does an excellent job at it.
...
In subsequent posts, I'll summarize `Ataaya's best arguments regrading the Qibla change-over event and his concluding chapter about understanding the significance of generalities in the Quran.


I found the following points `Ataaya makes about the Qibla command to be particularly smart:

  • Just like there is a lot of similarity between 2:106 and

    `Ataaya sees a lot of similarity between

    And the Qibla command verse,

    The similarities are:
    1. 16:101 refers to a sign replaced and 2:142 refers to a Qibla redirected.
    2. 16:101 ends with "But most of them do not know" and 2:142 starts with "The stupid will say..."
    3. 16:101 uses "When We" and 2:142 uses "They will", both indicating that the claim will be ongoing.

  • There is no evidence that God has ordered worshipers to pray toward any direction other than the Sacrosanct Mosque in Mecca. He says,

    The verse clearly states that it is for all people. Thus, the Jews too were so ordered. If they faced Jerusalem instead, it's a violation on their part of God's orders!

    Abraham and Ishmael, peace be upon them, were also ordered likewise,

    And

    These verses clearly state the purpose for cleaning up the place: for the circumambulation around the shrine (Al-Ka`ba) and those who stand up, bow down and prostrate in prayer. Thus, it was the Qibla even before Moses (PBUH).

    `Ataaya draws attention to the clause in verse 2:125, "And We covenanted ...", which emphasizes a mandate by God and a promise Abraham made.

  • Abraham and Ishmael, as well as all the other prophets, were Muslim and their message was Islam. Islam's Qibla is theirs too.

  • God ridicules any who would espouse any way of life other than that of Abraham,

    And the Prophet (PBUH) is ordered to follow the way of Abraham,

    Therefore, he had to face the same Qibla Abraham faced.

  • There is no verse, nor authentic hadeeth that says that God ordered the Prophet (PBUH) to face Jerusalem in prayer. What happened was that there was no order to face any direction at first,

    So, the Prophet (PBUH) faced the Sacrosanct Mosque while he was in Mecca. When he migrated, he found the new Muslims in Medina were facing Jerusalem, so he did likewise. 2:115 had no directive. Why was there not a directive early on? `Ataaya gives a great answer that I'll show shortly.

  • All the narrations (Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Abbaas and Abul-`Aaliya) that imply that a Jerusalem Qibla was by order from God are all opinions of the narrators; none of the narrations are attributed to the Prophet (PBUH).

  • Since the Prophet (PBUH) did face Mecca while he was there, was that also by order from God, or wasn't it? If it was, how come then no fuss was made when he changed it to Jerusalem after migrating to Medina? One would expect a lot more fuss when the direction is changed from the familiar to the unfamiliar!

    The reason fuss was made when the direction to Jerusalem was changed, is that the Jews of Medina made the fuss. They are the ones who accused the Prophet (PBUH) of changing the law of the Torah. He did not; he restored the law of the Torah. What he changed is the law of the Old Testament. That is what naskh is about: restoration of the original after it has been edited.

    The reason Muslims did not make a fuss when the Qibla was to Jerusalem by practice of the Prophet (PBUH) is that they understood 2:115; any direction is fine, so they followed the Prophet (PBUH).

  • The wisdom of delaying the order of a specific Qibla is that God knew what the Jews will do when the order comes! The Jews were mostly in Medina, so the order needed to be delayed until after the migration. God let the direction default to Jerusalem for a while for two purposes: test the compliance of Muslims (they succeeded), and expose the Jews. The Jews started to think that Muslims will gradually follow their religion and assured themselves that what they had was the truth. That's self delusion, since their scholars already knew:

    1. That Muhammad (PBUH) was the promised final prophet,


    2. That they are required to follow him when he comes,


    3. That the only Qibla God ordered them to face is Mecca,

    The order of the Qibla was a waking up to them from their delusion, and a test: will they acknowledge what they know to be the truth, or will they continue in their deviant ways? Most of them failed the test and continued in their deviant way.

  • The order to face Mecca in prayer was a test of faith to Muslims, and a tough one at that. All tests of faith are contingent upon compliance. As soon as the tested comply, the order has achieved its purpose. This is an important point to make, since many scholars have cited cases of test of faith as evidence for abrogation, e.g., the order to Abraham to slaughter his only son, and the order to the Prophet (PBUH) of fifty prayers. All those examples ended with compliance, thus they were not abrogated, they succeeded. The subsequent orders are not abrogation, but new orders.

    I'd add that the same logic applies to the "Big Three" abrogation claims: 8:66/8:65, 58:13/58:12 and 73:20/73:1-4.

  • Since there was never any order to face any direction until the order came to face Mecca, there was not a change-over of the Qibla per se. `Ataaya recommends that we never say that the Qibla was changed; it was specified. He says that 2:142 suggests that those who say that the Qibla was changed are fools and 16:101 suggests that those who say it are ignorant.

  • The Prophet (PBUH) was turning his face to the sky and God answered him by specifying the Qibla, per

    `Ataaya argues that the Prophet (PBUH) would not be turning his face to the sky if he was ordered to face Jerusalem; he would have accepted it and obeyed.

  • The Qibla order was a tough test of faith, per

    `Ataaya interprets كبيرة in this verse to mean a major sin. He understands this verse to mean that those who say that the Qibla direction was changed by order from God, or that God abrogated His command of a Qibla direction are committing a major sin!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010, 14:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
I believe that there is a direct correspondence in the verse: the phrase بخير منها (one better) corresponds to ننسخ من آية (remove, or abrogate a verse), while أو مثلها (or one like it) corresponds to أو ننسها (or cause it to be forgotten). Thus, when God abrogates a verse, He brings a better one; when He causes a verse to be forgotten, He brings one similar to it.

I have been thinking about this comment since I like it a lot. I wonder if it can be substantiated further, so that it is not attacked as something unfounded. Even if attacked, that is not going to affect the main thesis of the project, since one can plausibly attribute 2:106 to only the previous books and rely on 16:101 and 87:6-7 to explain all instances of the Quranic verses that were gone due to different narrations.

It turns out that this is indeed a recognized style of Arabic literature and it has a name: أسلوب اللف والنشر (the folding-and-unfolding construct), said Ash-Shawkaani in his book فتح القدير, volume 2, page 480, as quoted by Jamaal `Ataaya in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 371. Ash-Shawkaani brings that up in explaining verse 11:1,

He says,
أحكمها حكيم، وفصلها خبير عالم بمواقع الأمور

Translation: A Wise One set them firmly in place, and a well Acquainted One detailed them who is Knowledgeable with where all matters need to be placed.

That is, the orderly correspondence construct is like this:
من لدن حكيم
كتاب أحكمت آياته
خبير
ثم فصلت


So, the orderly correspondence is a style of the Quran. And I thought I discovered something new :)

One more tidbit Ash-Shawkaani says in his explanation of 11:1 is that the verb أحكمت is in the past tense, indicating that this is a final arrangement; the verses of the Quran are set in place once and for all and there shall never be any abrogating them. Right on.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2010, 07:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The author quotes At-Tabari from his exegesis saying that it was the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood who introduced the notion of ruling being separate from verse. At-Tabari agrees with them.

I looked into this in Ataya's book (حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن) and here are the highlights:

  • He tackles this in detail in Chapter 1 on page 79, and repeats parts of it in other spots. He states that Al-Tabari's assertion about abrogating the ruling but not the recitation, as well as the rules he set forth such as no abrogation for statements of fact, is what was inherited by the scholars after him.

  • He unambiguously attributes the very origin of adding the word "ruling" to the notion of abrogation of a verse to the companions of Ibn Masseoud.

  • He mentions that Al-Tabari adopted the meaning of abrogation as "transfer" from Ibn Abbas (who did not add the word "ruling" in his interpretation of abrogation in 2:106) and the notion of abrogating a ruling from the companions of Ibn Masseoud, commenting that this is characteristic of Al-Tabari in that he tries to put together all opinions.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 16:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked at this some more, and that theme runs from 2:104 to 2:112.

Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 22-25, suggests that the theme is actually part of a larger theme about the Jews, that runs from 2:40 to 2:123. He's right. In fact, I see that the theme about the Jews is covered in even more verses in Chapter 2.

He cites Al-Ghazaali from his book نظرات في القرآن, pages 244-248, proving that the context is clearly about the Jews objecting to the Quran abrogating the Old Testament. He asks why they found that objectionable when there is confirmation in the Old Testament that God will take from Judah a new testament (Jeremiah 31:31-32).

Indeed, God tells us in the Quran that not only did the Jews know that there will be new revelation, but that it will be given to other people,
Image
{6:89} Those are the ones to whom We gave the Book, authority and prophethood. But if these deny it, then We have entrusted it to a folk who are not therein disbelievers.


And they also knew the detailed description of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,

And they knew that the only Qibla is Mecca,

But they simply concealed that knowledge, because, obviously, it robs them of privilege.

Al-Ghazaali, as well as Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi in his exegesis, stated that this interpretation, that the Quran is the new Sign, also applies to 16:101. There, the polytheists wanted a physical sign to impress them. Al-Qaasimi says that this is evident by the verse that comes two verses later, 16:103


Al-Qaasimi, Mustafa Zayd and Sayyid Qutb all said that the same interpretation also applies to 13:39, evidenced by the preceding verse 13:38,


Thus, Taahir concludes, that all the verses that scholars used to prove the abrogation doctrine, all mean that the Sign of the Quran replaces prior Signs from God.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 17:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Ghazaali, as well as Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi in his exegesis, stated that this interpretation, that the Quran is the new Sign, also applies to 16:101. There, the polytheists wanted a physical sign to impress them. Al-Qaasimi says that this is evident by the verse that comes two verses later, 16:103

I have also been persuaded that the 16:101 is talking about the Quran replacing older scriptures. I don't see physical signs as the object of replacement here, since I don't see what it means to 'replace' them. They happened, people saw them at the time, so after that era there is nothing to replace. I also don't get the point that


provides any evidence for replacing a sign, or anything that has to do with that.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 17:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I don't see physical signs as the object of replacement here, since I don't see what it means to 'replace' them. They happened, people saw them at the time, so after that era there is nothing to replace. I also don't get the point that 16:103 provides any evidence for replacing a sign

What Al-Qaasimi said was that the Quran takes the place of any sign the polytheists were demanding; that it is the best Sign. That's how he understood replacement. In other words, the miracles performed at the hands of prior prophets, which the polytheists were challenging Muhammad (PBUH) to match, have all been replaced by the best one, the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 23:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
A number of articles I read lately maintain that naskh means affirmation, something which Ihaab Abduh has strongly emphasized throughout his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن. Naskh certainly means copying, as well as removal. Copying is a semantic that supports affirmation.

I started wondering how can verse 2:106 be interpreted with that semantic in mind. One way to do that may be as follows. God is saying: Whenever We restore (thus confirm) one of Our signs, We bring another that is even better. Whenever We cause one of Our signs to be forgotten, We bring one just like it.

That would work if the sign referred to is a scripture. When God revealed the Gospel, He restored the Torah, by removing from it what the Jews have changed or added and putting back what they deleted. But the Gospel added more to the Torah and thus is better than it. The Quran refers to this in,

As you can see from 3:50, the Gospel confirmed the Torah and came with relief from a punishment that was mandated in the Torah.

By the same token, when God revealed the Quran, He restored the Gospel, by removing what the Church has changed or added to it and putting back what they deleted. But the Quran added more to the Gospel and thus it is better than it. The Quran refers to this in,


Some scriptures have been caused to be forgotten, such as the Scrolls of Abraham. Those God replaced with the Torah, which must have been just like it, because whenever God mentions the scrolls of Abraham in the Quran, He always mentions them with them the scrolls of Moses! For example,

And

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 23:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
I always thought that verb نسأ meant to delay, but according to this discussion topic, Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi explained it as "to put on hold." He says that the verb نسخ (to abrogate) means that the conditions accompanying a ruling will never again return. That is why the ruling has been replaced. The verb نسأ, on the other hand, means that the conditions accompanying a ruling may return. Thus, the ruling is not gone; only put on hold until its conditions are again fulfilled.

Dr. Al-Qaradhaawi continues by saying that the reading of ننسأها (We put it on hold) is a valid and authentic reading of 2:106, and the verse may therefore be interpreted as follows: If We ever replace a sign or put it on hold, We bring one better or similar...

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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 28 Mar 2024, 13:52

All times are UTC

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