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.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 20:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Nobody claimed that

was abrogated by

Even though Chapter 17 was indisputably revealed after 73:20 was. How come? 17:79 clearly instructs whoever reads it to stand in prayer until the "dark cover of the night" and 17:79 names the Tahajjud prayer. Thus, the claim that 73:20 abrogated 73:1-4 is invalidated because 17:78-79 confirm 73:1-4, even if we assume that the addressee in 17:78-79 is the Prophet, peace be upon him, because he is also the only one addressed by 73:1-4.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 05 May 2010, 21:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Nobody claimed that 73:20 was abrogated by 17:78-79, even though Chapter 17 was indisputably revealed after 73:20 was. How come? 17:79 clearly instructs whoever reads it to stand in prayer until the "dark cover of the night" and 17:79 names the Tahajjud prayer. Thus, the claim that 73:20 abrogated 73:1-4 is invalidated because 17:78-79 confirm 73:1-4, even if we assume that the addressee in 17:78-79 is the Prophet, peace be upon him, because he is also the only one addressed by 73:1-4.

This is a pretty good one!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 06 May 2010, 07:40 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Ghazali brings up a very interesting case in his book. On pages 198-200, he quotes Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Darraz in his assertion that usury has had the same progression of verses in its prohibition as intoxicants did, but nobody claimed abrogation there.

It started with a subtle hint that usury was not a good thing:



which parallels the hint that 2:219 gives about intoxicants having both sin and benefits. Then came a restriction, rather than a prohibition:


where the prohibition of excessive usury parallels the prohibition by 4:43 of praying while intoxicated. Finally came the total prohibition:


which parallels the total prohibition of intoxicants in 5:90-91.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 14 May 2010, 05:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In refuting the claim that 2:283 abrogated 2:282, Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, page 94, quotes At-Tabari refuting the claim by saying that if it were a case of abrogation then there is abrogation in this verse too,

and that the words "then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and hands with it" abrogated the words "wash your faces and your forearms...".

At-Tabari gives another example,

And that the same kind of claim would be made: that the words "a fast for two months consecutively" abrogated the words "freeing of a believing slave".

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 24 Jun 2010, 04:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Ghazali brings up a very interesting case in his book. On pages 198-200, he quotes Dr. Muhammad Abdullah Darraz in his assertion that usury has had the same progression of verses in its prohibition as intoxicants did, but nobody claimed abrogation there.

It started with a subtle hint that usury was not a good thing (30:9), which parallels the hint that 2:219 gives about intoxicants having both sin and benefits. Then came a restriction, rather than a prohibition, 3:130, where the prohibition of excessive usury parallels the prohibition by 4:43 of praying while intoxicated. Finally came the total prohibition, 2:278-279,
which parallels the total prohibition of intoxicants in 5:90-91.

Exactly, yet the pro-abrogation scholars, including modern-day ones, such as Dr. Mustafa Zayd, never mentioned it, to the best of my knowledge, even though their basis for approving the abrogation claim of 4:43 is identical to this case here! Namely, that 3:130 does not explicitly prohibit usury, thus it implicitly allows it. If something was allowed before and is now forbidden, isn't that abrogation? That's what threw Dr. Zayd off and caused him to approve the abrogation claim of 4:43. The answer is no, because God never explicitly said that usury is allowed. Abrogation only applies to rulings by text. The prohibition in 2:278-279 was not abrogation, but new legislation.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2010, 04:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Another abrogation case that scholars could have made, but thankfully didn't, is that

was abrogated by or has abrogated

The argument for abrogation could have been that 42:37 does not exempt any sin from major sins and debauchery, while 53:32 does. I don't know why scholars overlooked this when they highlighted far less meritorious cases.

Such argument is bogus for a couple of reasons. First, both verses are declarative statements and therefore neither can be abrogated. Second, the "exception" in 53:32, اللمم, is by all definitions and exegeses not a major sin nor a debauchery, thus the exception here is stylish rather than in kind. That is, 53:32 means "Avoid major sins and debauchery. Minor sins may not be avoidable but God forgives them for those who ask Him for forgiveness."

The stylish exception is used a number of times in the Quran, e.g.,

In which God clearly directs an order to the angels then says that Iblees, who was of the sprites, not the angels, did not follow the order. Thus, this verse means "God ordered all heavenly creatures, even and starting with the angels, to prostrate to Adam. Iblees, a sprite, was the only one who disobeyed."

Another example is

Which clearly says that in Paradise people will not hear any frivolous or bad talk, "except" words of peace. Words of peace are neither frivolous nor bad. It's not an exception in kind, it's a stylish exception meaning "In Paradise, people will not hear frivolous or bad talk. They will only hear words of peace."

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 14:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
In discussing the claim of whether 9:5 or 3:104 abrogate 5:105 or it abrogate itself, I wrote,

Linguistic wrote:
What I don't understand is why didn't anybody say that

has been abrogated by

Which may be interpreted to mean that the man is responsible for his family's sins. It doesn't mean that, of course. It means that a man has a responsibility to teach his wife and children to be good Muslims, but if they do not follow him, he will not be blamed for it if he has done all he could and has been a good role model for them. That is where إذا اهتديتم in 5:105 comes in, practicing what he preaches.

Besides the more obvious reason that Chapter 66 was revealed before Chapter 5. But that didn't stop many scholars from claiming abrogation cases.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 18 Aug 2010, 07:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Nobody made the following claim and thank God nobody did.

Can a case be made that

was abrogated by

or by


of course such claim would be ridiculous, yet the same logic of jumping to a conclusion based on the apparent meaning of words, without considering context or other relevant verses, such has been used before in many abrogation claims.

Why is this not a valid abrogation claim, even though one verse says only God can be judge and the others say that the Prophet (PBUH) can be judge? Because God delegated judging to the Prophet (PBUH) knowing he will only judge by what God has revealed:

And


That is exactly the role of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to explain God's verses and judge by them. He is not to, nor has he ruled contrary to the Quran. In fact, a few times he decided something on his own in which he did not receive revelation and God corrected him with verses He revealed of the Quran, such as

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 22:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
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?

Turns out one scholar did! It was Ibn Khuzayma. See this post for more details.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Missing abrogation claims
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2010, 06:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Member Pragmatic noted this missing abrogation claim. He said that if the interpretation of Chapter 9, especially verses 1-11, 29 and 36, is that treaties with the polytheists are to be breached and not honored anymore, an obviously wrong interpretation, then those verses, especially

Should have been claimed abrogated by

Which orders the honoring and fulfillment of all contracts! Such claim would have been strong because Chapter 5 was revealed after Chapter 9. How come nobody among the pro-fight scholars has ever made that claim?

The reason there is no abrogation here is simple. 9:1 does not cancel existing treaties, it only orders that those treaties not be renewed after their terms expire.

_________________
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.  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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, 12:06

All times are UTC

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