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  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 06:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ali is reported to have reached his condemnation verdict after the man admitted he did not know about abrogation. The pro-abrogation folk cite this narration to show that knowledge of abrogation is a litmus test for understanding the Quran and that a person who does not know abrogation is unqualified to talk about the Quran or preach to people!

In other words, the narration with those words implies that if you teach the Quran without pointing out abrogation, you would be prohibiting things that are mandated, because abrogation turned prohibitions into mandates.

Got it. You are right in understanding it this way.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2011, 03:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
As mentioned in this post, Ibn Salaama lists verse 2:219 as one of the abrogated verses and starts his discussion by saying, "God forbade intoxication in five verses of the Quran" and he lists 2:219 as one of those five!

If 2:219 forbade intoxication then why does he consider it abrogated? He did not bother to explain.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2011, 16:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 143, Ibn Salaama says that Chapter 109 "is all unabrogated". Then on the very next line, he says, "{And for you your religion} (109:6) was abrogated by the sword verse!"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 31 Aug 2013, 18:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
In refuting the abrogation claim of 5:5/2:221 which he rejects, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 114, asks the logical question "How can the former abrogate the latter?"

He asked that question to refute the claims made my some scholars that the abrogation case is the reverse; that it was 5:5 that was abrogated.

The verifier of his book, Dr. m. Ibrahim Faaris, agrees and quotes An-Nahhaas asking the same question.

Yet, Shu`la approves of the abrogation claim of 2:234/2:240 and does not comment on the abrogation claim of 33:50/33:52. He must have been aware of this inconsistency though, because he claimed that 2:240 was revealed before 2:234, but he did not offer any evidence to back that up.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2013, 19:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his presentation of Abu-Abdillah Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 76, praises Shu`la for many things, among them is that he "put the opinions of the Sahaaba ahead of those who came after them."

But Shu`la adamantly rejected the Sahaaba's definition of naskh and insistently defended the second generation restriction of the meaning of the word to be abrogation only.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 19:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4471
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
On page 89, he (Jamaal `Ataaya) quotes Az-Zurqaani's book (Volume 2, page 210) saying that none of the following can be used to determine abrogation,

  • ...
  • The order of verses in the bound volume of the Quran, because it is different from the revelation order.

We actually do NOT know that for a fact. Narrations that state ordering of verses all seem to be less authentic than one would expect.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


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 20 Oct 2017, 14:13

All times are UTC

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