TheMostReadBook.org

It's not easy being pro-abrogation!

A running theme in Al-Jabri's book, and a specific statement on page 65, argue this exact point. Al-Jabri bases his anti-abrogation stand on the ability to exhaustively reconcile the verses of each abrogation claim (the part of the book that deals with individual abrogation claims should be interesting). He also points out the inconsistency of pro-abrogation scholars who set rules for abrogation then violated them when it came to considering specific abrogation claims.

PS: There are no refuted abrogation claims in Al-Jabri's book (the second edition), so probably they were in the first edition and were omitted in the second edition that concentrates on rebuttal of attacks on the first edition.

In his book, Nada politely points out an inconsistency, or a discrepancy, by Al-Qortobi in his exegesis regarding the interpretation of 16:101. Al-Qortobi reportedly mentions the attacks of the Jews and the change of the prayers direction as circumstances of revelation. Nada points out that the verse was revealed in Mecca, patently before the change of the direction of the prayers and well before the Jews started their attacks in Medina. Nada also points out that the original direction of the prayers was not decreed by a verse, so there is no substitution of verses as it relates to the change.

In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 31-32, Al-Jabri points out how Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri was inconsistent about naskh in his book الإحكام في أصول الأحكام. He mentions several questions Ibn Hazm asked himself about abrogation and could not answer! He pointed out how Ibn Hazm then concluded, rather than answering, that abrogation may be true for two reasons (which Al-Jabri calls "hangers"),

1. That God's reasons are His. We may not know them but we still have to obey what He says. Al-Jabri correctly replies that while that is true, there is not one verse where God says "this verse abrogated that other verse." If He did, we indeed would have to comply.
2. That God can do whatever He wills. Al-Jabri correctly replies that while that is true, God does not do many things that He is able to do, for instance, He does not wrong His creatures though He could if He wanted to! The fact that He can abrogate does not mean He did.

Al-Jabri goes on to say that Ibn Hazm just had to go along with the prevailing opinion of scholars of his time, otherwise much of what he wrote would logically lead him to oppose the abrogation doctrine.

Jamaal `Ataaya has studied the work of Abdul`Azeem Az-Zurqaai in detail and often quotes his book مناهل العرفان in his own book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن. On page 89, he quotes Az-Zurqaani's book (Volume 2, page 210) saying that none of the following can be used to determine abrogation,

• The opinion of a Sahaabi, since he could be wrong.
• Analysis of an analyst, without an explicit, authentic text.
• Opinion of an exegete, without an explicit, authentic text.
• The order of verses in the bound volume of the Quran, because it is different from the revelation order.

I fully agree. And it leaves no way to determine abrogation! Because neither God, nor His Messenger have ever said "this verse is now abrogated by this other verse." Yet, Az-Zurqaani was a huge advocate of abrogation and has approved 6-9 claims. Why?

In his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 212, author Al-Khazraji reports the case claiming abrogation of 2:183. He said that "for some people 2:183 was abrogated and with others it is abrogating." Then, in the footnotes, he refers the reader to several books, one of which is called الإيضاح by Makki! If you didn't get the irony, the word الإيضاح means elucidation. How lucid is this case if we don't even know if the verse was abrogated or was abrogating?

Otherwise, it's OK.

It is notable how people who are used to not being contested can produce totally vulnerable arguments without any concern.

In this post, I intend to tally all the conflicting narrations of scholars about the same abrogation claim. That is, one report says they supported the claim and another says that they rejected it. I know before I start that Abdullah ibn Abbaas, may God have been pleased with him, will take the lion's share of this tally. Personally, from what I read so far, I doubt the authenticity of most narrations attributed to him.

Conflicting narrations:
Ibn `Abbaas:
5:45/2:178, 4:11-12/2:180, 2:185/2:184, 17:33/2:194, 9:103/2:219 5:5/2:221, 2:286/2:284, 4:10/4:6, 4:11/4:8, 2:220/4:10, 65:1/4:24, 4:25/4:25, 33:6/4:33, 9:91/4:71, 9:5/4:80, 25:70/4:93, 9:5/47:4, 9:5/5:2, 65:2/5:106-108, 9:60/6:141, 8:66/8:15-16, 8:66/8:65, 24:62/9:44, 9:113/17:24, 2:227/26:224, 33:50/33:52, 34:47/42:23, 48:2/46:9, 58:13/58:12, 8:41/59:7, 9:1-11/60:8

`Umar ibn Al-Khattaab:
Sunna/24:2

Qataada:
9:5/2:109, 48:2/46:9

Mujaahid:
9:5/47:4, 9:5/5:2, 2:286/2:284, Analysis/33:44

Ad-Dhahhaak:
4:11-12/2:180, 9:5/2:256, 9:5/51:54, 9:5/74:4,

Al-Hasan Al-Basri:
2:185/2:184, 2:282/2:282, 4:11/4:8, 5:5/6:121, 9:60/6:141

`Aa'isha bint Abi-Bakr:
2:286/2:284, 73:20/73:1-4

`Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah:
2:185/2:184, 4:11/4:8, 5:49/5:42

Sa`eed ibn Jubair:
8:57/47:4

Ash-Shaafi`i:
5:49/5:42

"The majority!":
9:5/25:63,

In addition, I'd like to also tally the abrogation claims made by a narration whose authenticity scholars have cast doubt on. Here is the list I could gather:

Doubtful narrations:
17:33/2:194 (Ibn Abbaas/Ibn Al-Jawzi), 9:91/4:71 (Ibn Abbaas/Al-Khazraji), 9:5/6:66 (Ibn Abbaas/Ar-Raazi), 9:5/10:41 (Ibn Abbaas/Ibn Al-Jawzi), 9:5/10:108-109 (Ibn Abbaas/Ibn Al-Jawzi), 4:29/4:29 (Ibn Abbaas/Al-Qurtubi), 65:2/5:106-108 (Abu-Moosa/Ibn Salaam), 9:36/6:66-67 (Ibn Abbaas/Majority), 17:18/42:20 (Ibn Abbaas/Mustafa Zayd)

Another tally I'd like to keep is a tally of abrogation claims made by a notable scholar, Ibn Abbaas most likely, which the majority of scholars have rejected. So, here is that list:

Consensus against an opinion of a Sahaabi:
3:85/2:62 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:29/2:109 (Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood, Qataada) 17:33/2:194 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:60/2:219 (Ibn Abbaas), 2:229/2:229 (Ibn Abbaas), 2:233/2:233 (Maalik), 2:234/2:240 (Ali, Mujaahid, Al-Bukhaari, Ibn Taymiya), 65:4/2:240 (Ali), 4:48/4:18 (Ibn Abbaas), 65:1/4:24 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:5/4:63 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:91/4:71 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:5/5:2 (Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan), 9:36/6:66-67 (Ibn Abbaas), 9:5/6:70 (Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, At-Tabari), 9:5/6:106-107 (Ibn Abbaas), 2:220/6:152 (Qataada), 9:5/7:199 (Ibn Abbaas), 8:34/8:33 (Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan), 9:29/8:61 (Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan), 47:4/8:67 (Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid), 9:103/9:34 (Umar ibn Abdil-Azeez), 9:5/16:127 (Ibn Abbaas), 24:29/24:27 (Ibn Abbaas, Ikrima, Adh-Dhahhaak, Al-Hasan), 4:93/25:68-70 (Ibn Abbaas, Zayd ibn Thaabit), Sunna/39:33 (Al-Hasan), 17:18/42:20 (Ibn Abbaas), 52:21/53:39 (Ibn Abbaas)

One more tally I'd like to keep is of cases where consensus was claimed but that simply wasn't so! Here is a list I could find:

Untrue claims of consensus:
2:286/2:284 (Ibn Katheer),
5:90/16:67 (Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi/Mustafa Zayd), 33:50/33:52 (Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi/Mustafa Zayd, Consensus/65:2 (Sayyid Saabiq)

Finally, I'd like to keep a tally of all abrogation claims where no narration was quoted that can be attributed to a Sahaabi or higher:

Abrogation claims without a narration:
4:18/4:17, 8:39-40/8:38

This is a work in progress...

Excellent idea. The factual tallies are becoming a significant part of this project.