TheMostReadBook.org

As we read different books on abrogation, we encounter some inconsistencies in what a given author says, mostly in the form of an articulated rule that is subsequently violated. I believe we should document the most blatant of these inconsistencies.

Pointing out inconsistencies is not a personal attack, and it is factually based so it can be objectively discussed. It should be done in a respectful manner, realizing that people can only do their best and are not infallible. The purpose of pointing out these inconsistencies is precisely that, to show that scholars are not infallible. This is not meant to undermine them, but to make tangible the obvious point that they can be wrong at times. In the subject of abrogation, where the biggest hurdle is precedent and tradition, I believe this is necessary.

I suggest the following format: Quoted verbatim text from a book, including page numbers, that covers more than the inconsistent part (to make clear the context) with the inconsistent passages highlighted. Crisp explanation for what the inconsistency is. I think we should only include the most blatant inconsistencies that are next to impossible to reconcile. Only an inconsistency of two things that the same author is asserting is relevant.

The first such inconsistency that jumps to mind is what I reported in this post, where Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, rahimahullah, first states that exception is not naskh and that the majority opinion has been so, then turns around and states many naskh claims which are nothing but exceptions. It is quite puzzling. The only rational explanation is that he mixed definitions; when he rejected that exceptions were naskh, he must have had abrogation in mind, but when he cited exceptions as naskh, he had the other connotations of the word, such as amendment.

In discussing the interpretation of the word آية in 2:106, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh says in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن that "the consensus of scholars is that a word must be interpreted according to its general meaning unless evidence is shown to justify interpreting it with a specific meaning." Yet, he agrees with the consensus that the word in 2:106 means a verse of the Quran! That's also what Dr. Mostafa Zaid concluded. But the Arabic word means everything that causes one to wonder or reflect, e.g.,

And


Thus, narrowing its meaning to "verse" is unwarranted without proof. Furthermore, as we've shown before, it can refer to verses of prior scriptures, such as,


There are a lot of inconsistencies in his book, unfortunately. I could almost feel his desperation trying to prove that abrogation occurred in the Quran, much like how Al-Asfahaani labored in many cases to prove it didn't.

On page 181 of Chapter 7 of his book, which he dedicated to answering the charges of the Jews, Christians and Orientalists about abrogation, Al-Areedh defines replacement as "lifting of something and placing something else in its place." A very accurate definition, yet he continues to rely primarily on 16:101 to prove the abrogation doctrine!

Al-Jabri points in his book (pages 29-30) an inconsistency of Ibn Hazm in the book Al-Ihkam Fi Usul Al-Ahkam (4/59) where Ibn Hazm makes a strikingly unequivocal conclusion that there is no abrogation by saying (my translation of the key sentence):

The content of what was said implies for us that there is no abrogation in the sense on annulment of a juristic ruling through another juristic ruling.

Al-Jabri comments on the inconsistency that Ibn Hazm went on to state what the majority had stated about the existence of abrogation of the wording, abrogation of the ruling, or both.

I must say that this left me curious about the thinking of Ibn Hazm. What Al-Jabri reports of his writings makes Ibn Hazm sound philosophical, at times overly so. BTW, so far in Al-Jabri's book, the tone of what he writes is also philosophical and overly technical.

Sounds like he was torn the same way Ali Hasan Al-Areedh was. Sadly, both chose to yield rather than fight.

You're not going to believe this! Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, page 222 of Chapter 9, says the following,

Translation: And the replacement verse pointed that out openly as God said, "And when We replace a verse". It is an abrogated ruling. The ruling was lifted and in its place landed another ruling, while the words stayed.

Out of nowhere, he turned "replaced a verse" to "replaced the ruling of a verse but kept its words!" It's sad that he could not see the illogical and unsubstantiated argument he was making.

This would be really funny if it weren't a pretty serious matter. However, if this is the best they can come up with, at least we are getting reassured about our position.

In discussing whether consensus الإجماع can abrogate authentic text, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن writes,

Translation:
Opinions have no way of knowing that a ruling of God has ended. This can only be done with revelation, and there is no revelation after the Prophet, peace be upon him. God knows best.

He is right, but then why did he offer his opinion (by dismissing all abrogation claims but five) and quote the opinions of others as proof of the abrogation doctrine? The only explanation I could come up with is that he felt a duty to "defend" God's right to abrogate. Of course God has that right, but did He abrogate verses and leave the abrogated verses in the Quran? If so, why didn't He or His Messenger say so? Is it imaginable from God or His Messenger to leave Muslims wondering if verse is still valid, a ruling has been rescinded?

Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, says that if there is an explanation or interpretation that makes it possible to comply with two verses that seem contradictory, then there is no cause for an abrogation claim. I certainly agree, and this is precisely our validation rule #13.

He says that abrogation is invalidation of God's rulings, a serious matter that should not be resorted to unless there is no way to reconcile the two verses. I submit that there is not one abrogation claim that could not be avoided, precisely because in every such claim there indeed is an explanation that blows it away.

The inconsistency of Al-Areedh's book regarding his statement above is that he went on to claim that 24:2 abrogated 4:15-16. Let's apply his logic: Is there any interpretation that can reconcile the two? Answer: There sure is. It was offered by Al-Asfahaani as we shown in the topic discussing this case. It is a most compelling explanation, even supported by linguistics. So, why didn't Al-Areedh apply his own argument? His answer is, get this, "No other scholar said it!"

That, to me, means that he believes that consensus can abrogate the Quran. Yet, he shows in his book why it can't. Another inconsistency.

I hate writing these posts. I don't want to continue criticizing this reverend scholar. May God reward him for his analysis effort, Ijtihaad, and forgive me if I have done him wrong.

Update: I found out that Mujaahid ibn Jabr was the first to offer the interpretation of 4:15-16 which Al-Asfahaani used to reject the claim mentioned above. Thus, Al-Areedh's statement that no other scholar said it is incorrect.