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  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 18:42 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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...

Abdul-Qaadir Al-Arna'oot, who presented Ibn Salaama's book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, starts the book by quoting verse 2:106 written with نُنْسِأها. There is no evidence that I know of that this is a valid pronunciation of this word in the verse! That particular pronunciation, in fact, is a violation of grammatical rules, since the verb would then be in regular mood while the verse is conjugated in the jussive mood; he quotes the first verb in jussive mood, i.e., نَنْسَخْ. By inscribing the diacritics on the word, there is no chance that it is a typo.

This is quite a surprise and a major deviation from the overwhelming consensus of the written Quran. All authors have quoted the verse with ننسها then mentioned the alternative pronunciation of ننسأها, but Al-Arna'oot did not even bother. That casts serious doubt on his objectivity.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 02:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Abdul-Qaadir Al-Arna'oot, who presented Ibn Salaama's book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, starts the book by quoting verse 2:106 written with نُنْسِأها. There is no evidence that I know of that this is a valid pronunciation of this word in the verse! That particular pronunciation, in fact, is a violation of grammatical rules, since the verb would then be in regular mood while the verse is conjugated in the jussive mood; he quotes the first verb in jussive mood, i.e., نَنْسَخْ. By inscribing the diacritics on the word, there is no chance that it is a typo.

This is quite a surprise and a major deviation from the overwhelming consensus of the written Quran. All authors have quoted the verse with ننسها then mentioned the alternative pronunciation of ننسأها, but Al-Arna'oot did not even bother. That casts serious doubt on his objectivity.

I am totally with you on this. He certainly has to start with the authentic reading, and qualify the alternatives.

As for the diacritics, did he include one on the "أ" of "نُنْسِأها"?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 05:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
As for the diacritics, did he include one on the "أ" of "نُنْسِأها"?

A diacritic there is redundant, because if it were a dhamma (short u), or sukoon (no vowel), it would have been written ئـ, i.e., in ننسئها, because of the kasra (short i) just before it. There is no grammatical situation where it can be a kasra. Therefore, it must be a fat-ha (a short a).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 06:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
As for the diacritics, did he include one on the "أ" of "نُنْسِأها"?

A diacritic there is redundant, because if it were a dhamma (short u), or sukoon (no vowel), it would have been written ئـ, i.e., in ننسئها, because of the kasra (short i) just before it. There is no grammatical situation where it can be a kasra. Therefore, it must be a fat-ha (a short a).

Good deduction. I missed that. Now, I don't understand the parsing of the verb under the fat-ha interpretation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2011, 04:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
`Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri devotes an entire chapter, pages 143-170, of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, to the interpretation of 2:106 and 16:101. Do a search for "Jabri" on this topic to read some details of what he wrote.

He starts out the chapter with an important statement: The foundationists who backed up the abrogation doctrine, have themselves set a rule of deduction that "if there are other explanations, an abrogation claim is unnecessary." Al-Jabri extrapolates that rule to say that if there are other interpretations of 2:106 and 16:101 that do not back up the abrogation doctrine, then the doctrine is unnecessary!

He mentions that, indeed, there are more than ten other interpretations that have been suggested by knowledgeable, respected scholars, and proceeds to expound on what they wrote.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2011, 04:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He starts out the chapter with an important statement: The foundationists who backed up the abrogation doctrine, have themselves set a rule of deduction that "if there are other explanations, an abrogation claim is unnecessary." Al-Jabri extrapolates that rule to say that if there are other interpretations of 2:106 and 16:101 that do not back up the abrogation doctrine, then the doctrine is unnecessary

I am as anti-abrogation as the next guy :) but I respectfully disagree with Al-Jabri's line of reasoning here.

1. The abrogation doctrine is neither necessary nor unnecessary. It is either true or false. It cannot be false but we adopt it out of necessity, and it cannot be true but we dismiss it as unnecessary.

2. The burden of proof for the existence of abrogation is neither higher nor lower than the burden of proof of other conclusions taken from the Quran. The higher burden of proof is for declaring a specific verse abrogated, since the overwhelming assumption a priori is that each verse is authoritative.

3. The fact that 2:106 has other plausible interpretations that do not support the abrogation doctrine means that 2:106 cannot be taken as evidence for the abrogation doctrine.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2011, 20:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Part 1 in the Quran contains the entire context of 2:106. It was striking to me how consistent it is with the interpretation of 2:106 as abrogation of previous books. One of the striking passages comes a few verses before 2:106, 2:89-91

Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ ببن الإثبات والنفي, pages 148-149, suggests that the context for 2:106 actually starts a bit earlier,

Indeed, the context is overwhelmingly about the Jews and their pattern of rejecting new scriptures from God, which is particularly strange since these scriptures confirm theirs.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2011, 17:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Sha`raawi interpreted 2:106 in a detailed way, ...

  • He clearly interprets 2:106 as addressing each message of God abrogating the previous one, culminating in the Quran abrogating the Bible, and reaffirms the fact that the Quran is the final message. This interpretation is in agreement with the above posts, so it seems to be the established understanding of the verse.

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 30-31, mentioned that Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani's interpretation of 2:106 is the replacement of one Sharee`a (law) with another.

While the text is general, I agree with Al-Asfahaani and Ash-Sha`raawi, because of the context of 2:106, which clearly discusses the rejection of the Jews of the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2011, 02:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked at this some more, and that theme runs from 2:104 to 2:112.

Indeed, and it is crucial to read the entire theme to get the teaching, not just one verse and then jump from it to a conclusion, like what happened with the so-called sword verse.

I was listening to a recitation of Chapter 2 yesterday, and I'm now confident that the theme of 2:106 actually starts from verse 1! You see, verse 2:106 is the declaration of a fact that the Jews who objected to the Quran did not want to accept: that the Quran abrogated the Old Testament, and that they are now required to follow the Quran. Their theme had been, and still is, "why was the Quran revealed? Isn't the Torah sufficient, at least for them?"

God answers that question in detail. The prelude to 2:106 starts in 2:1. It goes like this:
  • The Quran is a true scripture from God. It came to confirm what was left unaltered in the Old Testament and to abrogate what was altered and replace it with what was original.
  • Disbelievers and hypocrites will not accept any revelation from God. It is why they altered the Torah.
  • They ought to believe in God, for He is their Creator and Provider and He will generously reward those who believe in Him and obey His commandments.
  • The story of Adam is crucially different from what is narrated in the Old Testament: God inspired Adam to repent, he did and God forgave him. The original sin was erased. Man's descent to Earth was not a punishment for Adam's sin, but was the purpose of his creation in the first place.
  • The Children of Israel ought to have been the first believers in the Quran, which confirms their scripture and honors their prophets.
  • The dogma that the Jews created and believed are wishful thinking. They, like all mankind, have a covenant with God that they had given their word to fulfill.
  • The objection to the Quran is not on religious basis. It is merely out of envy of the Arabs. Within the Arabs, the envy was of the man who got the honor to be God's last Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad, peace be upon him.
  • The Quran abrogated the Old and New Testaments.
  • The few of the People of the Book who truly understood God's message in the Torah and the Gospel, recognize the Quran as the true word of God, and recognize Muhammad who fit the description in the old scriptures to a tee.
  • The Message of God has always been the same. It is the religion of all the prophets. It is the "way of Abraham". Those who claim Abraham as the father of their religion ought to follow the Quran.

Thus, the interpretation of 2:106's use of "Aaya" as scripture seems to me the most rational interpretation, given the extensive prelude to the verse.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 02 Aug 2011, 04:16 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I was listening to a recitation of Chapter 2 yesterday

What a coincidence :), I also noticed many verses in Chapter 2 yesterday with the exact same theme: People of the Book not liking that they are no longer the exclusive 'proprietors' of God's word.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  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 26 Jun 2017, 15:41

All times are UTC

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