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  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:5, 9:29 or 47:35 abrogate 8:61?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 19:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Another case involving the sword verse and/or the Jizya verse. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

was abrogated by the sword verse,

And others said it was abrogated by the Jizya verse,


This is what he wrote,

ذكر الآية الرابعة: قوله تعالى "وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها". اختلف المفسرون فيمن عني بهذه الآية على قولين: الأول أنهم المشركين وأنها نسخت بآية السيف، وبعضهم يقول بقوله "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله"، وهذا مروي عن ابن عباس والحسن وعكرمة وقتادة في آخرين. أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا حجاج عن ابن جريح عن عطاء الخراساني عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها وتوكل على الله" فنسختها "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله" الآية. وأخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا أبن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال أبنا أحمد بن محمد قال بنا علي بن الحسين عن أبيه عن يزيد النحوي عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها" نسختها "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله" قال أحمد بن محمد وبنا موسى بن مسعود عن شبل عن ابن أبي نجيح عن مجاهد "وإن جنحوا للسلم فاجنح لها" نسختها "فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم".

والثاني أنهم أهل الكتاب، وقال مجاهد بنو قريظة. أخبرنا عبد الوهاب قال بنا ابو طاهر قال بنا شاذان قال أبنا عبد الرحيم قال أبنا إبراهيم قال بنا آدم قال بنا ورقاء عن ابن أبي نجيح عن مجاهد "وإن جنحوا للسلم" يعني قريظة فعلى هذا القول إن قلنا إنها نزلت في ترك حرب أهل الكتاب إذا بذلوا الجزية وقاموا بشرط الذمة فهي محكمة، وإن قيل نزلت في موادعتهم على غير جزية توجه النسخ لها بآية الجزية وهي قوله تعالى "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله" الآية


He reports the difference in opinion of whom is meant by 8:61. Some said it meant the polytheists, and therefore it's abrogated by the sword verse. Others said it was the people of the Book (Mujaahid said it meant Banu Qurayzha) and thus it's abrogated by 9:29. That view is held by Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan, Ikrima and Qataada among others. Ibn Al-Jawzi takes no position. He says that it depends on what 8:61 means.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 374, reports that Ibn Abbaas said that 8:61 was abrogated by

IMHO, the fact is that the verse is general and states a principle: Muslims do not fight those who lean toward peace and must stop fighting when the enemy stops fighting and offers to negotiate peace. Neither 9:5 nor 9:29 have abrogated that principle. As for 9:5, one must also consider the very next verse,

which clearly says that even a polytheist is not fought if he seeks refuge with the Muslims. The verse states clearly, "then give him his safe haven."

As for 9:29, the negotiation for peace includes paying the defense tax. If they agree, the fight must stop, otherwise it continues. No abrogation.

And as for 47:35, it forbids Muslims from not fighting back when attacked. That would be a weakness of faith. Negotiating for peace must be from a position of strength, otherwise injustice ensues.

See also the extensive discussion "Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 17 Aug 2010, 13:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Al-Hasan, Ikrima, Qataada, Mujaahid,
Ibn Abi-Nujayh (according to At-Tabari, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi.

Against:
The majority, according to Makki said Dr. Al-Husayni,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
Makki,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Al-Khaazin (implied),
As-Suyooti (implied by a report in his book الإكليل, page 115, wrote Al-Jabri),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5, 9:29 or 47:35 abrogate 8:61?
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2010, 18:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In refuting that 9:29 abrogated 8:61, Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 69-70 (item 789), argues that the offer of peace referred to in 8:61 includes agreeing to pay the Jizya, ordered in 9:29!

I'd add that 8:61 orders that we lean toward peace when the enemy does. It doesn't specify the terms of peace, nor does it imply that it is unconditional. Thus, 9:29 specifies one of those terms.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Consequences
PostPosted: 17 Jul 2013, 13:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Jabri rejects this claim in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 110-111. His argument is that 8:61 is in the middle of three verses that define rules of armistice. 8:60, the preceding verse, orders full preparation for war. The verse at hand curbs the use of force and makes it clear that God favors peace. The next verse cautions of making peace with an enemy who in seeking peace is only trying to buy time so they can be better equipped for attack.

So, these three verses teach Muslims that they should be strong in war and strong in peace.

Al-Jabri cites this case in his discussion of consequences of rejecting the abrogation doctrine. In this case, rejecting the doctrine enhances the chance for peace.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5, 9:29 or 47:35 abrogate 8:61?
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2013, 19:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 142-143, rejects this claim and agrees with Makki that 8:61 and 47:35 address two different situations. The former applies when Muslims are not strong while the latter applies when they are.

While I agree with their conclusion, I respectfully differ with their rationale. IMHO, 8:61 is speaking of a situation when the enemy is defeated and wishes to surrender; Muslims should accept that and stop the fight. They must never go on fighting for revenge. Verse 47:35, on the other hand, speaks of a situation when the enemy has not yet been defeated - Muslims should not hurry to end the fight until victory is clear. Doing otherwise means that lives have been wasted and crimes have gone unpunished.

As for the claim that the sword verse or the Jizya verse abrogated 8:33, such claim is without merit because these "fighting" verses include, or are succeeded by instructions as to when to end the fight, which leads to peace, which is what 8:33 is talking about.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


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 17 Sep 2019, 12:15

All times are UTC

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