TheMostReadBook.org
http://forum.themostreadbook.org/

Did 9:60 or 47:37 abrogate 47:36?
http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2630		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Linguistic [ 05 Mar 2010, 16:49 ]
Post subject:  Did 9:60 or 47:37 abrogate 47:36?
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports, with ridicule, that some have claimed that

was abrogated by the Zakah verse,

And some said it was abrogated by

Here is what he wrote,

ذكر الاية الثانية: قوله تعالى "ولا يسألكم أموالكم". زعم بعضهم أنها منسوخة بآية الزكاة. وهذا باطل لأن المعنى لا يسألكم جميع أموالكم. قال السدي إن يسألكم جميع ما في أيديكم تبخلوا. وزعم بعض المغفلين من نقلة التفسير أنها منسوخة بقوله "إن يسألكموها فيحفكم تبخلوا" وهذا ليس معه حديث


Ibn Al-Jawzi refutes by saying that the meaning is "all your property", which As-Suddi also said. Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses the claim of 47:37 on the basis of no evidence from the Hadeeth.
Author:  Pragmatic [ 15 Mar 2010, 05:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: Other abrogation cases - Did 9:60 or 47:37 abrogate 47:36?
Linguistic wrote:
وزعم بعض المغفلين من نقلة التفسير أنها منسوخة بقوله "إن يسألكموها فيحفكم تبخلوا" وهذا ليس معه حديث

...
Ibn Al-Jawzi dismisses the claim of 47:37 on the basis of no evidence from the Hadeeth.

I understood Ibn Al-Jawzi's statment as saying "there is no talking about this" as in being dismissive.
Author:  Linguistic [ 08 Jun 2010, 16:54 ]
Post subject:  Who said what
For:
Unnamed.

Against:
As-Suddi (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari (quoted from his exegesis by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.
Author:  Linguistic [ 18 Jun 2010, 22:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Did 9:60 or 47:37 abrogate 47:36?
Isn't claiming abrogation of any verse in Chapter 47 ironic? Since this verse in it,

clearly says that the Chapter is Muhkam? Isn't that the word unanimously used by the scholars to mean unabrogated?

If we apply the criteria in 47:20, we conclude that any Chapter in which the word القتال (Fighting) is mentioned may be Muhkam, then we must look with suspicion on any claim of abrogation against any verse in the following Chapters, where the word is mentioned!

Chapter 2, because of


Chapter 4, because of


Chapter 8, because of


and Chapter 33, because of


;)
Author:  Linguistic [ 27 Mar 2011, 19:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: 47:38 abrogate 47:36-37?
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 115, actually says that

abrogated


Thus, he does not agree with the main claim of this topic, but replaces it with his own! He does not say why he believes 47:38 abrogated anything. If I may second guess him, he must have thought that 47:36-37 meant that God will not ask the believers to spend any money! How can he make such conclusion, when the Quran is filled with commands from God to the believers to spend "in His way"?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/