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.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 4:71?
PostPosted: 25 May 2010, 21:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 127-128, presents a rational refutation. He says that the word ثبات means small groups, which means that some of them are not fighting at some point! This goes well with the command خذوا حذركم (take your precautions), which would not be if all Muslims went to the fight.

He quotes Al-Qurtubi from his exegesis, who quotes Ibn Khuwayz Mindaad saying that both verses are unabrogated because one of them applies when there is a need for all to fight and the other applies when there is no such need.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 4:71?
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2010, 16:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 222-223, refutes this case using the same argument I offered above: that the two verses are not in conflict. He then asks: If we concede abrogation here, then how come the following verses were not claimed abrogated by 9:122 as well?

And

Well, both were, as shown in previous posts!

_________________
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: 13 Aug 2010, 13:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

That is exactly what Al-Khazraji says in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 284. He says that this narration from Ibn Abbaas is not authentic because "consensus has been that people have a choice between going out for battle altogether or some for the rest, except when the call to arms is for all".

In other words, he believes that consensus can abrogate narrations regardless of their authenticity!

_________________
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: 09 Sep 2010, 15:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 249-253, using an excellent argument. He first says that exegetes offered a bunch of interpretations of the phrase خفافا وثقالا:

  • With energy and without.
  • Whether you have a few dependents or many.
  • Whether you have a few weapons or a lot.
  • With a ride or without (walking).
  • Young or old.
  • Thin or fat :)
  • Healthy or sick.

Ar-Raazi said in his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 8, page 16, that all those explanations apply, but only to those commanded by the leader to join the fight. That is evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) let women and some men stay behind, which proves that the call to fight is not a mandate on all as the pro-abrogation folk thought.

`Ataaya then presents his argument. He says that the cause for claiming abrogation is a misunderstanding of what the verse says:
  • God did not say انفروا جميعا (Go out to battle all of you); He says انفروا خفافا وثقالا (Go out to battle whether you are light or heavy). `Ataaya says that the misunderstanding of this clause is why God revealed 9:122, to correct it! Correction of misunderstanding is not abrogation.

  • The explanations of the phrase خفافا وثقالا that have been offered are all materialistic, when, in `Ataaya's view, the phrase is referring to the spiritual. He quotes for evidence a verse that appears shortly before 9:41,

    That is the context of all those verses, the fact that fighting is disliked,

    `Ataaya understands خفافا therefore to mean "with enthusiasm and desire to please God" and ثقالا to mean "without enthusiasm and preferring to cling to the luxuries of this world."

Finally, he says that, with this understanding, the verse has nothing to do with the excuse verses, such as 9:122, thus the two subjects are different and therefore there is no cause to claim abrogation.

_________________
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: 28 Oct 2010, 01:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The explanations of the phrase خفافا وثقالا that have been offered are all materialistic, when, in `Ataaya's view, the phrase is referring to the spiritual. He quotes for evidence a verse that appears shortly before 9:41,

That is the context of all those verses, the fact that fighting is disliked, verse 2:216. `Ataaya understands خفافا therefore to mean "with enthusiasm and desire to please God" and ثقالا to mean "without enthusiasm and preferring to cling to the luxuries of this world."

This is a compelling and original view, substantiated by Quranic words 3 verses before.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:122 abrogate 9:39?
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2010, 16:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

Dr. Mustafa Zayd confirms that in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 233-236 (items 1081-1085). He also adds

as another verse claimed abrogated by 9:122.

Dr. Zayd refutes the first claim easily by saying that 9:39 is simply a warning to those who do not go out to battle, but says nothing about how many are to go out to battle. In other words, if the Prophet (PBUH) calls you for battle, you must go. One cannot conclude from that previous statement that everybody must go out to battle.

By the same token is his refutation of the claim that 9:120 was also abrogated by 9:122. All that 9:120 says that people of Medina and the surrounding Bedouins cannot decline the order of the Prophet (PBUH) to go out to battle. Obviously, if they are not called, they don't have to go. Verse 9:122 states that some will not be called.

_________________
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, 9:41 & 9:120?
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2010, 18:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Nada rejects this claim in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, pages 138-141, on the basis of ability to reconcile all the verses.

One interesting evidence he cites as one that has been used (by Ar-Raazi in his exegesis) to prove abrogation, is a hadeeth where Ibn Umm Maktoom went to the Prophet (PBUH) and asked him, "Is the call to battle upon me?" (He was blind). The Prophet (PBUH) replied, "You are either heavy or light!" (referring to 9:41). Ibn Umm Maktoom went home, wore his battle gear and went back to the Prophet (PBUH). Then 48:17 was revealed.

Authenticity of this narration aside, it is not evidence for abrogation, it's evidence for elaboration. If the prophet (PBUH) took 9:41 to be without exception, then 48:17 was revealed to correct his assumption, not to abrogate 9:41.

Nada concludes his refutation of this case by saying (my translation), "Thus, it is clear that talk of abrogation of the verse shows shallowness of thought and scarcity of investigation."

_________________
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, 9:41 & 9:120?
PostPosted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 108-109, refutes this case and is amazed that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi was for it. Al-Jabri's argument is that the two verses talk about two different things. 4:71, he said, talks about the call to war, while 9:122 is about encouraging people to seek knowledge. That is, there ought to be a segment of society that is not military.

I agree and I'd add that the segment of society that is military do not have to attack in war all at once, per 4:71 which says that the military may attack all at once or in bursts of troops. Al-Jabri notes what many analysts have said about the defeat of the Persians in the Qaadisiyya battle against Muslims. They said that among the reasons was the fact that the Persians attacked Muslims all at once, which limited their maneuvering.

_________________
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, 9:41 & 9:120?
PostPosted: 26 Apr 2014, 19:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Dehlvi was too terse and unclear in his rejection of this claim, in his book الفوز الكبير في أصول التفسير, page 65. He says that 9:41 means that fighting may be done with light or heavy artillery. But he doesn't say why 4:71 or 9:91 and 9:92 do not abrogate that ruling. They make specifications, but he didn't say that.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 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 28 Mar 2024, 11:23

All times are UTC

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