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  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Al-Asfahani
PostPosted: 13 May 2010, 02:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahani

He is Muhammad Ibn Bahr Al-Asfahani, born 254 H. and died 322 H. He was a capable writer and speaker, and an isolationist (معتزلي) knowledgeable in interpretation and grammar, and he also wrote poetry. He worked for the Abbasi Khalif Almuqtader-Billah, and wrote for him. He was respected by people in power as well as knowledgeable people at the time.

In his book, Nada comes to the defense of Al-Asfahany on page 25, joining a number of 20th century scholars in defending him. He says that some have accused Al-Asfahany of denying that Islam abrogated previous revelations, when he only denied abrogation within Islam. Nada says that the goal of these accusations was to undermine Al-Asfahany, and he quotes another scholar (Abu-Alnoor Zuhair) who states that Al-Asfahany is with the majority in that abrogation has indeed occurred, but it has occurred between revelations, not within the same revelation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Key Scholars
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 06:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Jabri talking about Al-Suyuti

I was stunned that Al-Jabri, on page 50 of his book , is describing Al-Suyuti under the heading "Those enamored/misled by Abrogation" (المفتونون بالنسخ) as one of "readers who have no share in Islamic studies that would entitle them to pursue juristic rulings, who made false claims on God and His Prophet and His book that wouldn't be fit to discuss."

That sure is surprising. I never read but high praise for the man. The only criticism I read about him was for his liberal use of Israelite stories in his exegesis, "Tafseer Al-Jalaalayn". It's a proper criticism because he quoted the stories as facts and without any authentication.

I got confirmation for what you said. On pages 76-80 of his book, Al-Zalmi very strongly but nonetheless courteously criticizes Al-Suyuti for including suspect stories without commenting on them, and mentions that many attacks on Islam cite Al-Suyuti's book to add credibility to their attacks. The book seems to be the main source for propagating the narrations about the types of abrogation that include abrogating the recitation (with and without abrogating the ruling).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Al-Asfahani
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 04:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahani
...
He wrote an elaborate exegesis of 14 volumes, and the book "the Abrogating and Abrogated", and reportedly other books including a grammar book.

He is the most prominent anti-abrogation scholar among the originalists, and his opinions on the subject draw a lot of attention, and wrath, from pro-abrogation writers as he is the only notable exception to an otherwise credible consensus about the subject at the time.

Haani Taahir brings up a good point in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, page 128. He says that a bad interpretation of a verse in an attempt to argue that the verse is not abrogated, does not mean that the verse is abrogated! He mentions how many people have criticized Al-Asfahaani's exegesis of several verses, and he agrees with them that some of his interpretations are unconvincing, but that does not stand as evidence that those verses are abrogated just because his interpretation falls short. I agree.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Al-Asfahani
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 04:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
a bad interpretation of a verse in an attempt to argue that the verse is not abrogated, does not mean that the verse is abrogated!

Indeed false proof does not imply false theorem. If it did, life for mathematicians would have been much easier. All they would need is create a false proof for the negation of a theorem then show that the proof is false, and that would constitute a proof that the theorem itself is correct. :D

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Al-Asfahani
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2011, 18:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahani
...
He wrote an elaborate exegesis of 14 volumes, and the book "the Abrogating and Abrogated",

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 30-31, mentions a few interesting points about Al-Asfahaani:

  • He wrote an exegesis, titled جامع التأويل ("Collector of interpretation"), which "has been lost."

  • Az-Zurqaani mentioned that narrations from Al-Asfahaani are مضطرب (muddled or shaky). The favored interpretation of what he said about abrogation is that it may have happened in previous revelations, but not in the Quran.

  • Dr. Nassaar defends Al-Asfahaani against the charge that he said that naskh from God could not happen. He defends him by saying that what he meant by naskh was abrogation, while the other scholars included all the semantic aspects of the word.

  • At-Taaj As-Subki postulated the same defense and added that Al-Asfahaani avoided using the word naskh and used تخصيص (specificity) instead.

  • Al-Asfahaai's primary refutation of the abrogation doctrine is the verse,

    My question to the pro-abrogation scholars is this: How can any evidence you use stand against this verse?! The word الباطل used in this verse means falsehood and also means invalidity. It is the opposite of the word الحق which means the truth or what is firmly established, what has stood the test of time. The abrogation doctrine necessarily means that a command from God in the Quran could not last. That means it was باطل, God forbid!

  • Al-Asfahaani interpreted verse 2:106, as replacing one Sharee`a (religious law) with another. I'd humbly add that this is indeed consistent with,

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Al-Asfahani
PostPosted: 20 Jul 2011, 07:40 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Al-Asfahaani interpreted verse 2:106, as replacing one Sharee`a (religious law) with another. I'd humbly add that this is indeed consistent with verse 5:48

Great point about how verse 5:48 supports our interpretation of 2:106. The wording of the verse is hard to explain away.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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:  
It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 04:55

All times are UTC

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