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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2010, 19:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Imaam Muhammad Abduh:

In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh discusses Imaam Muhammad Abduh's interpretation of 2:106. Abduh understood the word آية in the verse to mean a sign proving truthfulness and that it has been used in that sense many times in the Quran. He further says that the next verse confirms that understanding when it says "To God is the dominion of the heavens and the earth."

Al-Areedh simply answers that by saying it is "insufficient to prove that this is the right interpretation!" And that the word آية means a verse in the Quran because "that is what is familiar to us." That's logic?

Al-Areedh actually spends four pages showing the context and circumstance of revelation of 2:106, and agrees it was to answer the Jews who rejected the Quran's authority to abrogate prior revelations, but then he says, "the verse is addressed to the believers who already know that the Quran abrogates prior scriptures, therefore, it must be referring to abrogation of verses in the Quran!" The verse is not addressed to anybody; it's a declarative sentence stating a fact: that God may remove any of His signs or commit it to oblivion at will and that if He does, He always brings one better or similar. No other interpretation is warranted.

He finishes his discussion of Al-Asfahaani by saying that the anti-abrogation folk are a few of modern-day scholars "whose opinion is not to be considered (لا يعتد برأيهم)!"

So, not only does Al-Areedh dismiss a scholar whom he admitted was a genius, pious and deeply knowledgeable, Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani, but he also dismisses one of the most prominent Muftis of Egypt. How sad!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2010, 23:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Imaam Muhammad Abduh:

In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh discusses Imaam Muhammad Abduh's interpretation of 2:106.

Dr. Mostsfa Zaid also discusses Abdu's interpretation, which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, and the comments by Al-Areedh remind me very much of the style of comments that Zaid made in his own interpretation of 2:106, being very weak and labored.

The easiest way to defend something is to adopt something that can be defended. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2010, 18:43 
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.

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. I see evidence of this observation in two instances I can recall:

In Chapter 93, verses 3-8,
ألم يجدك يتيما فآوى
ماودعك ربك وماقلى
ووجدك ضالا فهدى
وللآخرة خير لك من الأولى
ووجدك عائلا فأغنى
ولسوف يعطيك ربك فترضى

In Chapter 29, verses 38-40,
فمنهم من أرسلنا عليه حاصبا
وعادا
ومنهم من أخذته الصيحة
وثمود
ومنهم من خسفنا به الأرض
وقارون
ومنهم من أغرقنا
وفرعون وهامان


In Chapter 28, Verse 73,
لتسكنوا فيه
ومن رحمته جعل لكم الليل
ولتبتغوا من فضله
والنهار


Thus, it is reasonable to extrapolate to 2:106 that there is a one-to-one correspondence there as well, i.e.,
نأت بخير منها
ماننسخ من آية
أو مثلها
أو ننسها

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 04:04 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
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.

I see the point. Can you elaborate a bit on the ramifications on abrogation of this particular interpretation of 2:106?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 04:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
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.

I see the point. Can you elaborate a bit on the ramifications on abrogation of this particular interpretation of 2:106?

Sure. If we agree that all verses of the Quran are equally good, and that the meaning of بخير منها is "with what is better than it", then, if the one-to-one correspondence pattern applies to 2:106, then the abrogating verse must be better than the abrogated verse. Thus, the abrogated verse cannot be in the Quran. Therefore, it must be in another scripture.

It also follows from applying the pattern that the verses which were caused to be forgotten can be verses from the Quran. Having been caused to be forgotten necessarily means that they are not written in the text of the Quran.

With these two applications, one can conclude that 2:106 is stating that abrogation of verses can only happen to prior scriptures. The only Quranic verses that God would invalidate are verses which He has caused to be forgotten and thus are left out of the text of the Quran.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 05:01 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
The best part of Al-Jabri's book so far is Chapter 6, pages 143-170, that is dedicated to the various interpretations of 2:106 (with an occasional reference to 16:101). He reports other interpretations by different scholars, and substantiates the main interpretations of the verse with sound analysis. It is the most comprehensive analysis of 2:106 that I have seen in any book so far.

One positive aspect is that most of the angles in our interpretation of 2:106 already exist in the literature, and they were pointed out by bone fide scholars.

I will cover the main aspects in the proper context here, in terms of threads as well as which previous posts to reply to. I won't be exhaustive. I'll just include what I feel has an impact on what we are doing here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 20:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
In 2:105, God addresses the believers (per the preceding verse 2:104) and tells them that those who do not believe (including people of the book, explicitly mentioned in the verse) don't like that good be sent down to the believers from God. A plausible interpretation of this would be that the good that God is sending down to the believers is the Quran, and that the disbelievers don't like it out of jealousy which is hinted at as the verse goes on to say that God chooses whoever He wants. This interpretation is straightforward and found in the standard books of interpreting the Quran. Now, on to 2:106.

In 2:106, God mentions that if He abrogates a verse or causes it to be forgotten, He will bring better or similar to it. Given that the preceding verse is describing how the disbelievers don't like that the Quran was sent down to us, and the Quran implicitly renders the previous books not valid any more (which is probably the reason the people of those books don't like it), it is completely reasonable to infer that what is abrogated are the verses of the previous books such as the Bible, and that the Quran is what is better or similar which God brought. This interpretation also fits the "forgotten" part, since many original verses of the Bible and previous holy books were gone.

Al-Jabri postulates and elaborates the same interpretation on page 147 of his book. He quotes Hijazi Al-Saqqa in his elaboration, saying that the biggest reason for the Jews to resist Islam at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) is that they liked the monopoly of revelation to stay in the Isaac branch of the Abrahamic heritage, and did not want the Ismail branch to receive such a blessing, and they contended that there can be no juristic revelation other than the Torah that they have since it is sufficient. This fits the wording of 2:105-106 perfectly. Al-Jabri also mentions that the forgotten revelations are those like the scripts of Abraham that were gone with time.


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.

Even this point that I am so proud of :D is covered by Al-Jabri at the top of page 151.


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's where Al-Jabri disagrees, as he believes no abrogation of any kind has taken place within Islam. However, Al-Jabri makes a conclusion on page 152 that is not overreaching. He concludes that 2:106 cannot be taken as evidence that there is abrogation in the Quran and stops at that.

IMHO, I don't see a fundamental problem with the possibility of abrogated/substituted/forgotten verses within Islam, that were gone and never made it to the text of the Quran, since it is the same as abrogating and forgetting previous revelations except on a smaller time scale. A better argument is the static/dynamic dichotomy, where the fact that the Quran was revealed over time may necessitate deletions along with additions. What matters is that the book that the Prophet (PBUH) left us is intact.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 20:27 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
IMHO, "If" is the operative word in this verse.

Al-Jabri makes a statement at the bottom of page 146, which I believe is materially incorrect. He says: ما ننسخ فعل منفي ('whatever we abrogate' is a negated verb) which is not true. ما is a conditional article not a negation article in 2:106.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 20:49 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Circumstances of Revelation

Al-Jabri discusses the circumstances of revelation of 2:106 on pages 150-152. Here are the highlights.

  1. According to one narration (unattributed by Al-Jabri) the verse was revealed in response to accusations by the Jews that the Prophet (PBUH) makes a command one day then reverses it, and says something today and withdraws it tomorrow.
  2. According to a different narration, also unattributed, the verse was revealed in response to a dialog between Muslims and Jews inviting them to Islam, for which the Jews responded "If it were better than what we have, we would join you. We would love it if it were better."
  3. Ibn Abbas is reported to say that 2:106 was revealed in response to the Prophet (PBUH) receiving revelation at night and forgetting it in the morning. Notice that this would not support the abrogation doctrine, even if the incident was true.
  4. Al-Jabri concludes that the narrations about the circumstances of revelation (for or against his interpretation) are not binding for interpreting the verse since they don't meet the criterion of authenticity.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 03 May 2010, 03:46 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I tried to find out whether the Quran ever referred to the contents of the Injeel (Bible) or the Torah as verses, to substantiate the interpretation of 2:106 that builds on 2:105.

Al-Jabri went through the same exercise on pages 152-155 of his book, trying to find Quranic references to the contents of previous revelations that use the word آية. He didn't mention the examples we reported in this thread, but he found a great example,


He then moved on to the question of whether an entire previous revelation was referred to as verse rather than verses, in order to fit the literal wording of 2:106. IMHO, his effort was neither necessary nor successful. I don't believe that it is necessary because 2:106 does not specify what kind of abrogation took place, just what would happen if any took place.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


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 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 16  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 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 29 Mar 2024, 04:43

All times are UTC

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