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  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 8:41 abrogate 8:1?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 18:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
This case is about the spoils of war. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that people, such as As-Suddi, have said that

has been abrogated by


Here is what he writes,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي إدعي عليهن النسخ في سورة الأنفال. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "يسألونك عن الأنفال قل الأنفال لله والرسول". اختلف العلماء في هذه الآية فقال بعضهم هي ناسخة من وجه ومنسوخة من وجه حراما في شرائع الأنبياء المتقدمين فنسخ الله ذلك بهذه الآية، وجعل الأمر في الغنائم إلى ما يراه الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثم نسخ ذلك بقوله تعالى "واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فأن لله خمسه". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا أبن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال أبنا وكيع قال بنا إسرائيل عن جابر عن مجاهد وعكرمة قالا كانت الأنفال لله فنسخها "واعلموا أنما غنمتم من شيء فأن لله خمسه وللرسول"، هذا قول السدي. وقال آخرون المراد بالأنفال شيئان: الأول ما يجعله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لطائفة من شجعان العسكر ومقدميه يستخرج به نصحهم ويحرضهم على القتال، والثاني ما يفضل من الغنائم بعد قسمتها كما روى عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما قال بعثنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في سرية فغنمنا إبلا فأصاب كل واحد اثني عشر بعيرا ونفلنا بعيرا بعيرا فعلى هذا هي محكمة، لأن هذا الحكم باق إلى وقتنا هذا، والعجب ممن يدعي أنها منسوخة، فإن عامة ما تضمنت أن الانفال لله والرسول والمعنى أنهما يحكمان فيها، وقد وقع الحكم فيها بما تضمنته آية الخمس، وإن أريد أن الأمر بنفل الجيش ما أراد فهذا حكم باق، فلا يتوجه النسخ بحال، ولا يجوز أن يقال عن آية إنها منسوخة إلا أن يرفع حكمها، وحكم هذه ما رفع فكيف يدعي النسخ؟ وقد ذهب إلى نحو ما ذكرته أبو جعفر ابن جرير الطبري


He rejects the claim and says that Ibn Jareer At-Tubari opined similarly.

Ibn Al-Jawzi states above a good criterion for claiming abrogation: a ruling has been lifted. To apply this criterion, one should, in my view, identify the ruling then prove it has been lifted. Too often in abrogation claims, the ruling is not correctly identified and no convincing proof is furnished that it has been lifted. Often the only "proof" furnished is nothing more than interpretation or opinion.

He says that 8:1 states the ruling that spoils of war are for God and His Messenger to decide, and God did decide in 8:41, so where is the suspicion of abrogation?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 18:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Mujaahid (in one report according to Al-Ghaali), Ikrima, Ad-Dhahhaak and As-Suddi,
`Aamir ibn Shuraaheel Ash-Sha`bi (according to An-Nahhaas and Makki),
An-Nahhaas (implied),
Abu-Ali (Al-Jabaa'i?) (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Abul-Qaasim Hibatullah Ibn Salaama.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Ibn `Umar (quoted by Al-Ghaali),
Ibn Abbaas (implied by another report quoted by Al-Ghaali),
`Ubaada ibn Aş-Şaamit (implied, quoted by Al-Ghaali),
Abu`Ubayd (implied, quoted by Al-Qurtubi),
Ibrahim An-Nakh`i (quoted by Al-Ghaali),
Mujaahid (implied by another report quoted by Al-Ghaali),
Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Jareer At-Tabari,
Al-Qurtubi (implied),
Ibn Al`Arabi (implied),
Az-Zamakhshari,
Ash-Shaatibi,
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Baydhaawi,
Ibn Zayd (according to Ibn `Atiyya Al-Andalusi),
As-Suyooti,
As-Şaawi,
Az-Zurqaani,
Al-Aloosi (according to Az-Zalmi),
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. N.A. Tantaawi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:41 abrogate 8:1?
PostPosted: 22 Jun 2010, 17:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
In his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 147-152, Al-Ghaali propounds the much varied opinions of the scholars who disagreed on every one of the following points,

  • What is meant by الأنفال (spoils of war)? Some, such as Ibn Abbaas, said that it is booty exclusive to the Prophet (PBUH). Others, itemized by Ibn Al-Jawzi, said it's booty the Prophet gives as a reward to top soldiers, others, such as Ibn `Umar, said it's what remains after the leader divides the spoils of war.
  • What does "for God and the Messenger" mean? Some, such as Ibn Abbaas (in one report), said it means it is given to them, others, such as Ibn `Umar, `Ubaada ibn Aş-Şaamit, Ar-Raazi, Al-Baydhaawi, and Rasheed Ridha said it is up to them to decide. Al-Ghaali agrees with the latter interpretation. Abu`Ubayd and An-Nakh`i opined that the spoils of war are entirely for the Messenger to divide, not just one fifth.
  • Is there a difference between الأنفال and الغنائم (gains)? A-Raazi, who rejected the abrogation claim, suggested that the former means booty obtained without a fight. Mujaahid said it's the fifth mandated in 8:41.
  • Is 8:1 abrogated or abrogating? An-Nakh`i said this case is the other way around, i.e., 8:1 abrogated 8:41! Al-Qurtubi rejected that opinion. Ibn Al-Arabi said that 8:1 abrogated the prohibition on prior nations.

Al-Ghaali then comments (my translation),
"Thus teeters those who claimed abrogation between saying the verse is abrogated or abrogating, and this supports what we've said that abrogation claims are following of conjecture, there is no proof of it, it is impossible to ascertain and therefore it is a daring to annul a text and a command from God. That's not right." Emphasis mine.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 8:41 abrogate 8:1?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 06:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4532
Location: USA
A good background for this claim was written up by Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 65. He wrote that during the battle of Badr, as the Prophet (PBUH) saw how weak and few Muslims were, he said to them, enticing, "Whoever kills an enemy person, gets his things, and whoever captures an enemy person, gets his ransom."

When the battle ended, he noticed that the booty was less than the number of soldiers. That's when 8:1 was revealed. Ibn Salaama then proceeds to make the claim that 8:41 abrogated 8:1, without discussion!

As interesting as this background is, which BTW was not authenticated by the verifier of the book, it has nothing to support the abrogation claim. 8:1 may have abrogated the Prophet's command (PBUH), but that would be a different claim from the one in question.

I did look up the hadeeth. It was reported by Abu-Daawood, Ibn Hanbal and Ad-Daarimi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 Feb 2020, 09:23

All times are UTC

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