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  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:122, 9:91 or 48:17 abrogate 4:71, 9:39, 9:41 & 9:120?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 16:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
This is the case of a war and who must join it.


is claimed to have been abrogated by


Supporting 9:122 are:

And


The case here assumes that the injunction in 9:41 is general and unconditional because it has not specified limitations. But that the other verses quoted above abrogated that aspect of it.

This is not abrogation; this is specification. This is the set of exemptions that go along with the injunction. The Quran must be taken together. Not all verses are self-sufficient. When a verse gives a command and does not specify limitations, it doesn't mean that the command has no limits because the limits may be specified later. If 9:41 is abrogated then the conclusion is that "no one need participate in war" and that obviously is not the case.

I'll post the claims about 9:39 and 4:71 later.

See also the related topic Did 9:122 abrogate 9:120?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 9:41?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2010, 20:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The case here assumes that the injunction in 9:41 is general and unconditional because it has not specified limitations. But that the other verses quoted above abrogated that aspect of it.

This is not abrogation; this is specification. This is the set of exemptions that go along with the injunction. The Quran must be taken together. Not all verses are self-sufficient. When a verse gives a command and does not specify limitations, it doesn't mean that the command has no limits because the limits may be specified later! If 9:41 is abrogated then the conclusion is that "no one need participate in war" and that obviously is not the case.

Agreed. Let me add a point about 9:41. Strictly speaking, the command in the verse in and of itself would be fulfilled by a person if the person goes out to war only once. With multiple wars and battles, people can perfectly follow 9:41 and 9:122 simultaneously. I am not saying that going once is in fact the ruling in 9:41. I am just pointing out that if we accept a "take the verse literally in isolation" approach in order to argue for abrogation, then the same approach can be used here to argue against abrogation, thus pointing out the fallacy in this approach.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 9:122 or 9:91 abrogate 4:71, 9:39 and 9:41?
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2010, 04:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that Ibn Abbaas has said that 4:71, 9:39 and 9:41 were all abrogated by 9:122,

But others, such as As-Suddi said they were abrogated by 9:91,


Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about it,

ذكر الآية الثامنة عشرة: قوله تعالى "خذوا حذركم فانفروا ثبات أو انفروا جميعا". وهذه الآية تتضمن الأمر بأخذ الحذر، والندب إلى أن يكونوا عميا وقت نفيرهم، ذوي أسلحة عند بروزهم إلى عدوهم، ولا ينفروا منفردين، لأن الثبات الجماعات المتفرقة. وقد ذهب قوم إلى أن هذه الآية منسوخة. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا علي بن أيوب قال أبنا علي بن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا الحسن بن محمد قال بنا حجاج ابن محمد قال قال ابن جريج وعمر بن عطاء عن عطاء عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "خذوا حذركم فانفروا ثبات" وقال "انفروا خفافا وثقالا" وقال "إلا تنفروا يعذبكم عذابا أليما"، ثم نسخ هذه الآيات فقال "وما كان المؤمنون لينفروا كافة فلولا نفر من كل فرقة منهم طائفة" الآية.
قلت وهذه الرواية فيها مغمز، وهذا المذهب لا يعمل عليه، وأحوال المجاهدين تختلف، والأمر في ذلك على حسب ما يراه الإمام. وليس في هذه الآيات شيء منسوخ بل كلها محكمات. وقد ذهب إلى ما قد ذهبت إليه أبو سليمان الدمشقي


Ibn Al-Jawzi's argument refuting abrogation is that situations differ and it is up to the head of state to call how many to fight.

Once again, each verse here talks about something different from the others and together they complete one instruction. This instruction is:

When you are called for battle, some of you, e.g., the regular army, must go out to battle and others should stay behind for civilian purposes, such as to educate themselves in religion and to warn the citizens about the battle so that they can take precautions (9:122). Those who go out may do so in separate troops or one big platoon (4:71). They may go out with light ammunition or in heavy ammunition (9:41). Failure to go out to battle when called will be punished severely by God (9:39).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122, 9:91 or 48:17 abrogate 4:71, 9:39 and 9:41?
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2010, 05:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
This case is about the obligation on the entire Muslim community to join the battle. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that the following verses,
...
have all been abrogated, according to Ibn Abbaas

OK, I will look into the substance of the rulings to address the abrogation claim, but I would like to understand what Ibn Al-Jawzi means by " هذه الرواية فيها مغمز " since this will impact other narrations on Ibn Abbas. If it has to do with the authenticity of the narration, then it is an isolated case. However, if he is not questioning the authenticity of the narration, then this becomes a very important case. Why? Because I haven't seen this abrogation claim before, so I assume that the 'consensus' is that it is not valid. Now, if Ibn Abbas says its is abrogated and they ignore that, then they use Ibn Abbas as evidence that abrogation has occurred in the text of the Quran, this is a "pick-and-choose" inconsistency that can and should be shot down.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 9:39?
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 05:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi adds this in regards to abrogation claim of 9:39. He reports that Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan and Ikrima stated that 9:39,

was abrogated by 9:122. Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about it,

ذكر الاية الخامسة: قوله تعالى "إلا تنفروا يعذبكم عذابا أليما". أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا علي بن أيوب قال أبنا بن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا أحمد بن محمد قال بنا علي بن الحسين عن أبيه عن زيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "إلا تنفروا يعذبكم عذابا أليما" نسختها "وما كان المؤمنون لينفروا كافة"، وقد روى مثل هذا عن الحسن وعكرمة. وهذا ليس بصحيح لأنه لا تنافي بين الآيتين، وإنما حكم كل آية قائم في موضعها، فإن قلنا "إلا تنفروا" أريد به غزوة تبوك، فإنه كان قد فرض على الناس كافة النفير مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولهذا عاتب المخلفين وجرت قصة الثلاثة الذين خلفوا، وإن قلنا إن الذين استنفروا حي من العرب معروف كما ذكرنا في التفسير عن ابن عباس فإنه قال: استنفر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حيا من أحياء العرب فتثافلوا عنه وأمسك عنهم المطر فكان عذابهم، فإن أولئك وجب عليهم النفير حين استنفروا. وقد ذهب إلى إحكام الآيتين ومنع النسخ جماعة منهم ابن جرير وأبو سليمان الدمشقي وحكى قالوا ليس ها هنا نسخ ومتى لم يقاوم أهل الثغور العدو ففرض على الناس النفير إليهم ومتى استغنوا عن إعانة من وراءهم عذر القاعدون عنهم ذكر الآية


Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees because he says 9:39 was for the Tabook battle only and that is why the three men who did not join the battle were chastised and boycotted. Ibn Jareer and Abu-Sulaymaan Ad-Dimashqi agree that there is no abrogation here.

I see the explanation of the specific situation of the battle of Tabook as a reasonable explanation to refute the abrogation claim. But I also see that 9:34 does not imply that going out for battle is a directive to all Muslims. I see it as a warning that if qualified soldiers do not join a battle called for by the Muslim leader, then they incur God's torment. Thus, 9:122 does not abrogate 9:34 but rather completes the ruling,

"When called to battle by your duly authorized Muslim leaders, those of you qualified to join the battle must join it, but some of you should stay behind to prepare the other citizens for war conditions."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 4:71, 9:39 and 9:41?
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 05:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
And Ibn Al-Jawzi adds this in regards to the abrogation claim of 9:41,

ذكر الآية السادسة. قوله تعالى "انفروا خفافا وثقالا". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا اسحاق بن أحمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال في براءة "انفروا خفافا وثقالا" وقال "إلا تنفروا يعذبكم عذابا أليما" فنسخ هؤلاء الآيات "وما كان المؤمنون لينفروا كافة"، وقال السدي نسخت بقوله "ليس على الضعفاء ولا على المرضى" واعلم أنه متى حملت هذه الآية على ما حملنا عليه التي قبلها لم يتوجه نسخ


He adds that As-Suddi said that 9:41 was abrogated by


Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees for the same reason he quoted for 9:39. See the previous post.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 9:122 abrogate 4:71?
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2010, 03:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that

was abrogated by


I assume that the perceived conflict here is that the word جميعا and the word كافة are assumed to mean the same thing. They don't. The former means "together" and the latter means "inclusively." The distinction is that the former means that it is sometimes a wise war tactic to attack with the entire army at once. The latter says that not all citizens are required to go to battle, which establishes the notions of an army and a national guard force.

The word كافة is used in the Quran many times, and always indicates inclusivity. For example,

Teaching that the Prophet's message (PBUH) includes all mankind.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 4:71?
PostPosted: 16 Apr 2010, 03:38 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Nice analysis.

I get the impression that the abrogation doctrine has actually impeded some scholar's analytic thinking since abrogation is an easy way out whenever any conflict is perceived. No serious effort, not even minimal effort sometimes, is invested in trying to reconcile the verses.

Sometime we need to know that there is an explanation in order to seriously look for that explanation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 or 9:91 abrogate 9:41?
PostPosted: 08 May 2010, 02:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, pages 316-319, rejects this abrogation claim on an interesting basis: that the two verses, 9:41 and 9:122 speak of two different subjects. He says that 9:41 speaks of calls to arms while 9:122 is about calls to receive education in religion. It's true; there is really nothing in 9:122 to indicate that it is about a call to arms. The only words there that may indicate it are لينذروا (so as to warn) and يحذرون (be on the alert). He answers that with a hadeeth that confirms that such educational missions were done at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), especially when new revelation came. And he quoted Ad-Dhahhaak confirming that latter point.

He quotes Al-Khudhari refuting that 9:91 was the abrogating verse either, because 9:91 merely explains whom is not required to go out for battle, so it is a specification or exemption, not abrogation. See page 254 of Al-Khudhari's book أصول الفقه.

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa sees both 9:91 and 9:122 as specifiers of the generality in 9:41 and says that specification is not considered naskh by the later scholars. He says that in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 54.

Semantics again! Among the many meanings of "naskh" is specification. What Dr. Mustafa probably means is that it does not only mean abrogation. That semantic ambiguity should have been clarified by the early scholars, by saying, for instance, نسخ إزالة (amendment by removal, i.e., abrogation) instead of just نسخ (amendment).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 08 May 2010, 02:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
As-Suddi (he said the abrogating verse is 9:91),
Ibn Abbaas (in some reports),
Al-Hasan, Ikrima (according to An-Nahhaas or Makki),
Mujaahid (according to Ibn Salaam),
`Ataa' Al-Khuraasaani (he said the abrogating is 9:122, per Ar-Raazi),
Ibn Zayd (who said the abrogating is 9:122, according to An-Nahhaas as reported by Dr. Faaris),
Murra ibn Shuraaheel (according to Shu`la),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Ibn Abbaas (in other reports, according to Dr. Zayd),
Ad-Dhahhaak (implied),
Qataada (re 9:122, according to Shu`la),
Abu-Sulaymaan Ad-Dimashqi,
Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad,
An-Nahhaas, Makki,
Al-Qurtubi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Judge Abu-Ya`la (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi,
Ash-Shawkaani,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (who said it was the other way around: 9:41 abrogated 9:122, according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Khazraji,
Shah Waliullah Dehlvi,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-Areedh,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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 06 Dec 2019, 09:06

All times are UTC

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