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  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 05:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
This topic is to list cases that members consider qualified for a claim of abrogation according to criteria used by the scholars, but these cases have not been declared abrogated by any scholar.

The question then is: why not? Why were these cases not claimed as abrogation incidences by the scholars even though they match their criteria?

This may seem like a frivolous exercise, but IMHO it's another argument against abrogation, because, as we've seen in many abrogation claims, there is a definite pick-and-choose tendency in them.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 05:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
One such case would be that

should have been claimed abrogated by


But nobody said so, to the best of my knowledge. How come? Similar patterns of verses have been quoted by the scholars as abrogation.

It is obvious to me that this case, like cases with a similar pattern, do not have a conflict to resolve nor does one change the other. Verse 27:65 speaks of the total knowledge of the Beyond, which only God has, while verses 72:26-27 speak of the partial knowledge of some aspects of the Beyond which God may grant to some of His approved messengers. Two different concerns.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 07:30 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
This may seem like a frivolous exercise, but IMHO it's another argument against abrogation, because, as we've seen in many abrogation claims, there is a definite pick-and-choose tendency in them.

Not frivolous at all. I think this is an excellent idea. Consistency seems to be in short supply in the literature I have read so far, and what you suggest is an integral part of being consistent.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 16:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Why didn't any abrogationist claim that

were abrogated by the next verse


which alters the amount of time the Prophet (PBUH) is instructed to stand in prayer from most of the night to about half of it?

An abrogation claim here would have been quickly dismissed, and rightly so, because the specification of half can be thought of as a partial apposition noun (بدل البعض من الكل) or as one of the allowed options. Yet, verses of similar pattern have been claimed abrogated but not this one.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 17:36 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Why didn't any abrogationist claim that 73:1-2 were abrogated by the next verse 73:3 which alters the amount of time the Prophet (PBUH) is instructed to stand in prayer from most of the night to about half of it?

An abrogation claim here would have been quickly dismissed, and rightly so, because the specification of half can be thought of as a partial apposition noun (بدل البعض من الكل) or as one of the allowed options. Yet, verses of similar pattern have been claimed abrogated but not this one.

Nice!

It seems that the algorithm for claiming abrogation starts from a 'basis', a narration of some kind, then synthesizes an argument about conflict. In the absence of a narration, the argument would be the opposite, explaining away the conflict. This means that the abrogation claim is really about the narration, not about the conflict.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 18:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Another abrogation claim which should have been made but never was, to the best of my knowledge, is that the sword verse,

was abrogated by the refuge verse, the very next verse!


Here you have a direct order from God to the Prophet (PBUH) to deliver a polytheist, who sought refuge with him, to a safe haven. That precludes killing him, doesn't it?

And of course an abrogation case cannot be made here. The entire discussion and debate about the sword verse should have taken all fifteen verses, 9:1-15, together to get the point. Instead, people extracted 9:5 alone and jumped to monumental conclusions from it. It would be understandable if Islamophobes did that, but what is the excuse of devout Muslims?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 18:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
the refuge verse, the very next verse!

Interesting wording in this verse that I didn't pay attention to before, "Then deliver him to his place of safety." It seems to me (and I concede that this may be a superficial impression on my part) that the idea is that non-believers were no longer allowed in the Haram area and that the crux of the first few verses of chapter 9 was to fight those who insist on their disbelief and refuse to leave the Haram area. This verse confirms that narrow scope by asking the Prophet (PBUH) to relocate a disbelieving person who wants out to a place of safety for him, outside the Haram area.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 17 Mar 2010, 04:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Abrogationists have mentioned that 3:85 abrogated 2:62, but they never discussed 5:69! If we follow the same logic they followed, we will have to conclude that the abrogation of 2:62 by 3:85 was itself abrogated by 5:69 which confirms 2:62 almost word for word!

This verse,

was claimed abrogated by

which should have been claimed abrogated still by


Yet, there is nothing in the literature I read so far that even touches 5:69 from afar when discussing the 3:85/2:62 abrogation case.

Obviously, there is no cause for claiming abrogation in any of the three verses and that all three verses are valid. 2:62 and 5:69 confirm each other, apply to people who died before the Quran was revealed, and define what God means by Islam in 3:85.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2010, 03:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
If we use the kinds of arguments that pro-abrogation scholars have used, we might wonder why nobody claimed that

was abrogated by the next verse,


It wasn't of course because each verse talks about a different thing even though they look like they are talking about the same thing. Verse 4:78 says that the source of everything is God. Of course. There is no other source. The keyword in the verse is عند. Verse 4:79, on the other hand, says that the cause of good things is God, as a reward for the good people do and as manifestation of His grace, while the cause of bad things is people's sin.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2010, 18:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4480
Location: USA
Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has claimed that this verse,

Was abrogated by the hadeeth,
لايرد القضاء إلا الدعاء

"Nothing repels a decree but supplication."
Which is confirmed by


Such claim of course would be without merit, but claims with less merit and similar arguments have been made.

Why is this claim without merit? Because 33:36 prohibits rebellion but does not preclude pleading, which the hadeeth and 40:60 encourage a Muslim to do. Thus all three texts are consistent with each other and no abrogation claim need be made. I'm glad none were.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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 23 Oct 2017, 18:56

All times are UTC

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