TheMostReadBook.org

Nice points you raise, and you supported both by specific text.

Al-Ghali articulates very nicely the dilemma faced by those who are anti-abrogation when they make an obvious argument against an abundance of opposite opinions by major scholars. Mind you, he is making this remark in the context of refuting one of 'the big 3'. On page 179 of his book, he writes (my translation):

"When we read the verse, stripped from the interpretations of the early Muslims and the conclusions of the later Muslims, and away from the claims of abrogation, we indeed find that the meaning is clear without ambiguity, and nothing in it would call for an abrogation claim at all. Then when we go through the references of interpretations and exegesis, and find almost unanimity about the abrogation of the verse, herein lies the problem. Did all of these distinguished scholars miss that obvious meaning of the verse? This is what raises doubt in my mind about the correctness of what I am saying. However, the truth supersedes and is not superseded, and I seek help from God so I don't fail and ask Him for guidance."

I quoted this from another thread since my comments here belong more to this thread as they address the high-level picture.

Because the fundamental premise of religion is belief, and because we believe in a number of things that we cannot fully explain (e.g., angels, resurrection), there is a trap that many fall into based on extrapolation of this concept. The trap is to treat doubt about any aspect that humans invoke in religion, e.g., abrogation or authenticity of a hadeeth, as if it was disbelief in the religion itself. If someone comes up with an assertion and then questions people's faith when they don't believe it, he is questioning people's faith in him, not in God. There is a world of difference.

Haani Taahir, in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 14-15, quotes Hassaan Abdul-Mannaan from his book علاقة الجان بالإنسان, page 53, saying (my translation):

One aspect of this study indeed ought to be the historical factors that may have given rise and/or support to the abrogation doctrine. Was the abrogation doctrine politically motivated?

The two points you raise above, Pragmatic, represent two levels of politics. On a personal level, folks may have felt peer pressure to believe like their fellows or teachers. On a more general level, folks may have organized the abrogation doctrine to counter attacks on the religion.

I think there is plenty more to discuss in this topic, so I'm going to open up a new topic to address it. We may end up studying history books as well.

Linguistic makes an excellent point about the emphasis in


This verse, with the explanation in the above linked post, are important in making the case against the 'conflict' basis of abrogation.

It may be a useful practice every time we quote a verse in order to make a point or to interpret the verse, that we go through major references, e.g., Tabari, Qutb, and Shaarawi, ahead of time looking for interpretations of the verse to make sure that we are not missing something, and also to substantiate the argument we are making.

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 22, expresses his amazement at the abrogation doctrine saying,

"It is between two exaggerations: rejection and defense. We don't have available sufficiently disciplined studies such as an encyclopedia that includes them all, or objective studies that make a sound, acknowledged conclusion based on full laid out foundation and details."

I hope that this project is such a resource!

He specifically finds it ridiculous that Ibn Salaama, as written in البرهان في علوم القرآن, volume 2, page 29, has approved over 230 abrogation claims, more than half of those by the "sword verse."

Having thought closely about the abrogation doctrine for a solid period now, and attentively read so many intricate details recently, here are 3 components of the doctrine that are fatally vulnerable.

1) Separating the ruling from the recitation when a verse is the object of abrogation. The ruling is naturally gone when the verse is abrogated, but the separation is the issue. Furthermore,

• They used "recitation" not to describe a text that survived, but a text that survived in the Quranic script. It is normal for abrogated text to survive as opposed to be forgotten as 2:106 prescribes.
• This opened the door to have other surviving text that is not in the Quran (abrogation of recitation, with or without the ruling). It also allowed them to withdraw Quranic mandates from verses in the Quran, and institute Quranic mandates on text that is not in the Quran.

2) The fact that the verses that have been abrogated are undesignated by God Almighty or the Prophet (pbuh).

3) The fact that humans can reason that a verse is abrogated. Using perceived conflict to do so is adding insult to injury.

Just thought I'd encapsulate my thoughts as there are tons of issues that are intermingled, which created a fertile ground for the doctrine to drag on.