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 4:140 abrogate 6:68 or 6:69?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 04:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

is claimed to have been abrogated by


Here is what he wrote about it,

ذكر الآية الرابعة. قوله تعالى "وما على الذين يتقون من حسابهم من شيء"، أي من كفر الخائفين وإثمهم. وقد زعم قوم منهم سعيد بن جبير أن هذه الآية منسوخة بقوله "وقد نزل عليكم في الكتاب أن إذا سمعتم آيات الله يكفر بها ويستهزأ بها فلا تقعدوا معهم". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال بنا عمر بن عبيد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال بنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا إسحاق ابن يوسف عن سفيان عن السدي عن سعيد بن جبير وأبي مالك في قوله "وما على الذين يتقون من حسابهم من شيء" قالا نسخها "وقد نزل عليكم في الكتاب أن إذا سمعتم آيات الله يكفر بها" الآية قلت ولو قال هؤلاء أنها منسوخة بآية السيف كان أصلح وكان معناها عندها إباحة مجالستهم وترك الاعتراض عليهم، والصحيح أنها محكمة لأنها خبر، وقد بينا أن المعنى ما عليكم شيء من آثامهم إنما يلزمكم إنذارهم


The claim was made by Saeed ibn Jabeer and Abu-Maalik. Ibn Al-Jawzi almost mocks the mass claim about the sword verse! He suggested that 9:5 is a better claim than 4:140. He rejects the claim because 6:69 is a statement. He is right.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:140 abrogate 6:68 or 6:69?
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 07:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The claim was made by Saeed ibn Jabeer and Abu-Maalik. Ibn Al-Jawzi almost mocks the mass claim about the sword verse! He suggested that 9:5 is a better claim than 4:140. He rejects the claim because 6:69 is a statement. He is right.

Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 428-429 in volume 1 of his book. In addition to the statement-of-fact argument, he challenges the authenticity of the narrations of Ibn-Abbas and others involved in this claim. He also says that Al-Tabari and Al-Nahhas are both against the claim.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:140 abrogate 6:69?
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 17:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi includes 6:68 in this abrogation claim,

This claim makes even less sense than claiming that 6:69 was abrogated by 4:140, since it practically repeats what 4:140 says almost word for word, namely,
"When you realize that a people are blaspheming or attacking Islam or its sacred icons, do not join these people until they talk about something else."

Ibn Salaama makes the same claim, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 60.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 17:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,
Ibn Jurayj and As-Suddi (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Abu-Maalik,
Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implying in one report, but he said the abrogating would be the sword verse),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama (Both include 6:68 in the claim)

Against:
At-Tabari,
An-Nahhaas,
Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Muhammad ibn Al-Mutahhar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Aş-Şa`di,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 4:140 abrogate 6:68 or 6:69?
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 22:50 
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, page 137-138, decided that there is no abrogation here. He says that the reason scholars thought that there is a case for abrogation here is because they concluded from 6:69 that it was OK for believers to sit down with disbelievers even when the latter mocked the Quran, provided that the believers did not engage with them. The pro-abrogation scholars then argued that this allowance was abrogated by 4:140 which forbade such tolerance. Shu`la offered a reconciliation argument: that 6:69 addresses those who are strong enough or secure enough to confront the disbelievers whenever they make such mockery, and 4:140 addresses those who don't have the guts.

I respectfully disagree that 6:69 allowed believers to tolerate mockery of the Quran! Where does it say that? It is an unfounded perception IMHO. Verse 6:69 quite simply says that the believers are not accountable for what the disbelievers say about the Quran. That's all. That remains valid and does not contradict 4:140. In fact, 4:140 confirms 6:68. It actually starts out saying that this has been revealed in the Book already!

_________________
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 5 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 07 Dec 2019, 17:03

All times are UTC

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