TheMostReadBook.org

Some scholars have commented on this verse,

and said that the five items mentioned in it are the "keys to the unknown." If they are, then this verse must have abrogated it


Such claim was never made, to the best of my knowledge, and I'm glad none were. Such claim would have been easily refuted because there is nothing in 31:34 to indicate that the items mentioned are the keys to the unknown; it's merely some scholar's interpretation.

Yet, verses have been claimed abrogated solely on the basis of an interpretation.

This verse suggests that the Prophet (PBUH) does guide people,

Yet this verse makes it clear that he doesn't. Only God can:

So, did the former abrogate the latter, or vice versa? Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested that. They would be wrong if they did, since guidance is showing the road, which the Prophet, peace be upon him, could and did do. It's another thing to walk the road, which is what 28:56 speaks of.

And if you're saying that is an interpretation, you'd be right, but to use interpretation to reconcile apparent conflicts between verses and thus eliminate the need to claim abrogation, is IMHO a legitimate analysis and that reasoning has been asserted by many scholars as well.

But we don't even need interpretation of what guidance means in each verse. This is another example of human will operating under God's will. Just like what we will is free, but is always subject to God's will, so is guidance. One can do everything to guide somebody, but God does not let the person be guided. It's not random; it's based on God's knowledge of whom deserves guidance. This is precisely why God ends 28:56 with "And He is most Knowing of the guided."

Excellent example. This one must be highlighted in the argument about the arbitrariness of which verses are abrogated.

Here is an interesting case that I haven't seen anybody claim that it constitutes abrogation. How come nobody said that

has abrogated all verses about what can and cannot be eaten or drunk? In fact, two people, Uthmaan ibn Mazh`oon and Amr ibn Ma`dikarib claimed that this verse proves that drinking alcohol was not forbidden! As-Suyooti reports this story in his landmark book الإتقان في علوم القرآن,

It was Ibn Abbaas (RA) who answered. He said, "If they knew the circumstance of its revelation, they would not have said that. When alcohol was prohibited, people asked, 'What about those who were killed in the way of God? Some of them were drinkers.' " That's when the verse was revealed.

Another potential abrogation case, refuted by Ibn Abbaas, is that

And

Are abrogated by

And

And

This is an excerpt from a longer hadeeth, reported by Al-Haakim in his book Al-Mustadrak,

The explanation of Ibn Abbaas is simple: The first verses, 23:101 and 28:66, occur after the first blow of the Horn, the rest of the verses occur after the second blow.

Of particular interest is how Ibn Abbaas ended his advice. He said, "Whatever seems conflicting to you from the Quran is like what I mentioned to you." Indeed, perceived contradictions in the Quran are just that: perceived. Scrutiny reveals they are not so. There is never cause to claim abrogation just because one cannot reconcile two verses he deems contradictory. Claiming abrogation is a cop-out for one who is unable to reconcile two verses.

I have no comment about the abrogation claim itself, but I find the questioning of "what happened to those who died and used to drink?" to be very strange. Isn't it obvious that people are obliged only to obey the commands that are applicable in their time? How about those who died before Ramadan fasting was instituted? I fail to see the point of the question.

To complete the translation of what Ibn Abbas said: "...God has not revealed something without hitting what He intended, but most people don't know." The entire statement should be quoted when the case against contradiction-based abrogation is made.

I imagine it's the natural worry for a loved one.

One abrogation claim that was never made, to the best of my knowledge, is that the prohibition of eating pork, stated in many verses, such as

was abrogated by

That claim could even be supported by the fact that 5:5 was revealed at the same time as 5:3 and God uses a word in 5:5 and 5:3 that strongly suggests a change, namely اليوم (Today)!

Why wasn't such claim made? It is certainly a lot stronger than most other claims combined.

That claim would have been false as all other claims, because 5:5 does not imply that all of the food of the people of the Book is allowable; it simply says their food is allowable. That means that Muslims do not have to refuse food offered them by the people of the Book, unless the other criteria apply, namely, it was not properly slaughtered, God's name was not mentioned at the slaughter, and the slaughtered animal was not a pig.

Verses of the Quran are not to be taken in isolation, they are to be taken all together before a ruling is made.

Good point, especially when we deal with 8:66.