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 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2011, 02:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

In fact, if you pay attention, the theme continues, on and off, till the end of Chapter 5!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2011, 14:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I thought that perhaps this is the style of the Quran: a sequence of statements X1, X2, X3 followed by a sequence of other statements Y1, Y2, Y3 where Y1 corresponds to X1, Y2 corresponds to X2 and Y3 corresponds to X3.

As I was reciting Chapter 26 the other day, I noticed another usage of that same style,

First, God mentions the night and the day, then He describes both in sequence saying "to quiet down in it (the night) and to seek of God's bounty (the day).

This is clearly an established style of the Quran and therefore, I'm convinced, it applies to 2:106 as well.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2011, 01:25 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
As I was reciting Chapter 26 the other day, I noticed another usage of that same style, 28:73. First, God mentions the night and the day, then He describes both in sequence saying "to quiet down in it (the night) and to seek of God's bounty (the day).

This is clearly an established style of the Quran and therefore, I'm convinced, it applies to 2:106 as well.

I looked at the instance in 2:106 to which you are applying this analysis, and I agree that your point is valid.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2011, 18:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked at the instance in 2:106 to which you are applying this analysis, and I agree that your point is valid.

Not sure if I mentioned this before, but a corollary of this is that what God may remove He replaces with something better, while what He may cause to be forgotten, He replaces with something similar. IMHO, an example of the former is the Quran replacing the Bible and an example of the latter is the Torah replacing the scrolls of Abraham. Recall how both are mentioned together in Chapter 87? It's because they were equal!

Notice that I did not say that the Quran replaced the Torah or the Gospel, both of which are gone as a result of human manipulation. What the Quran replaced is the Old Testament and the New Testament. And the reason it replaces them is because they were altered by man, so the Quran came to restore the original teachings of the Torah and the Gospel and to correct the man-made teachings in them. That is what the Naskh in 2:106 is, I am convinced.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 27 Aug 2011, 22:18 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1784
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
That is what the Naskh in 2:106 is, I am convinced.

Again, since I agreed with the previous post, I did not want to be misunderstood that I agree with this (respectfully). Christians were required to fast on certain days and in a certain manner (authentically, before any corruption of the scripture is taken into consideration), while we are not required (or even encouraged) to fast on those days or in that manner. They were not required to fast Ramadan, and we are.

This leaves no doubt in mind that naskh, abrogation, annulment, whatever we call it, has occurred in divine commands between scriptures. I have absolutely no problem with the principle or the concept.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 16:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
This is Sheikh Shaarawi on video interpreting 2:106,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byt97oTA7Ow

His argument conforms with the traditional views of the majority of scholars. Some of the points he makes are:
  • The subject of 2:106 is the abrogation of prior scriptures and laws with the Quran and the Sharia.
  • 2:106 is a continuation of the subject introduced in the preceding verses, ending with 2:105, namely that the Jews and the polytheists envied Muslims for receiving the Quran and Muhammad (PBUH) for being the last Messenger of God.
  • What is "better" in the Quran is the new laws that fit the new developments in peoples lives. And what is "similar" is the fixed principles of theology, e.g., the oneness of God.
  • When scholars disagree on something, they actually disagree on different things; each is looking at a different aspect of the matter. As an example he quotes the anti-abrogation scholars and disagrees with them that abrogation is tantamount to realization (بداء).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2013, 14:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 26-29, as he propounds the scholars definition of naskh, mentions something rather strange. He says that Mujaahid ibn Jabr and `Ataa' ibn Aslam, who have read the word ننسها in 2:106 as ننسؤها, have concluded that some of what God has kept in the Preserved Tablet was never revealed to the Prophet (PBUH).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2013, 14:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I found the following points `Ataaya makes about the Qibla command to be particularly smart:

  • There is no evidence that God has ordered worshipers to pray toward any direction other than the Sacrosanct Mosque in Mecca. He says 3:96 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, per 22:26 and 22:125. 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.

I was listening to a recitation of Chapter 2 yesterday, and it occurred to me that a rebuttal to the above argument could be made by citing,

and

But you may notice that in neither of these two verses does God say that He ordered or sanctioned those prayer directions. In fact, God calls people's choices of and disputes over prayer direction 'whims."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 18:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
There is one linguistic point that convinces me that this is the correct interpretation of 2:106. The Arabic word " خير " is used in both 2:105 and 2:106. The word means both "good" and "better" and also "choice" as an adjective (describing something chosen for quality). In 2:105, "خير" is what the disbelievers don't like us to get from God, and in 2:106, "خير" describes what God promises to bring if He abrogates a verse. Coming in two adjacent verses, I believe that "خير" is referring to the same thing in both verses which would be the Quran, and this supports the interpretation that 2:106 is about the Quran abrogating previous books.

Being linguistic myself :), I find that to be the crux of the evidence that 2:106 speaks of the Quran abrogating prior scriptures.

Pragmatic wrote:
Of course it is possible that 2:106 also describes verses that had been gone from the Quran during the life of the Prophet (PBUH).

That I don't see, especially given your analysis of context and the repetition of the word "خير" in 2:105 and 2:106. Rather, the verse refers, IMHO, to scriptures that were entirely forgotten, such as the scrolls of Abraham.

Pragmatic wrote:
Sheikh Muhammad Ash-Sha`raawi interpreted 2:106 in a detailed way
...
  • He discusses, in detail and with logic and clarity, that different times call for different rules, and that is why God abrogates previous messages as time goes on. He also mentions that matters of faith do not change with time, and explains that when a new message abrogates the previous one, the rules are better because of changing times, but the matters of faith are similar, and that is how interprets "better or similar" in 2:106.

  • He applies the same argument to verses in the Quran abrogating other verses. He counters the argument that there cannot be abrogated verses in the Quran because it would constitute 'change of mind' or 'failure to anticipate' by arguing convincingly that abrogation does not imply that, but rather it reflects an understanding of what different times call for and legislating accordingly.

I hate to disagree with the reverend Sheikh, may God bless his soul, but what debunks his theory is that times have changed greatly since the Seventh Century and no new scriptures were since revealed. How then can hundreds of verses be abrogated during 23 years but none during 1400 years?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2013, 18:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4434
Location: USA
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 may have mentioned this before. This pattern, or construct, called in Arabic grammar أسلوب اللف والنشر (the pattern of folding then unfolding), is used several times in the Quran and that is why I believe it is what is used in 2:106 as well. One such usage I noticed recently is:

Clearly, "so that you may quite down in it" corresponds to the night time, and "to seek of His bounty" corresponds to daylight.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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 25 Jun 2017, 17:26

All times are UTC

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