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  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 13:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 151-155, discusses why scholars have claimed abrogation and why they were wrong. He points out, among their many errors, their inconsistency in following the rules that they themselves have set for abrogation to be valid.

One such inconsistency is the rule that the abrogating text must have occurred later in time than the abrogated text. He quotes As-Suyooti saying that but then saying, "except in two places: 2:234/2:240 and 33:50/33:52." The scholars never explained how that can be!

`Ataaya points out that other scholars added to the list 8:41/59:7 and 7:199 (not sure what he meant by that last one).

Then he quotes Az-Zurqaani from his book مناهل العرفان, volume 2, page 254, saying, "So, they included in abrogation what is not of it, based on specious argument. Of those are Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas, Hibatullah ibn Salaama and Abu-Abdillah Muhammad ibn Hazm (Al-Andalusi). They authored books in which they excessively mentioned abrogating and abrogated [verses] out of misinterpretation and errors."

Yet, Az-Zurqaani went on to claim several abrogation cases, also based on his interpretation and many authors have pointed them out. As if the problem Az-Zurqaani saw was the quantity of abrogation claims, not the quality of the abrogation doctrine.

The more books I read the more I realize that the only rational reason scholars of old would not even consider that the abrogation doctrine is false is Taqleed (following) of their ancestors. They could not bring themselves to reject an established doctrine, even if it is a false one.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 20:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The more books I read the more I realize that the only rational reason scholars of old would not even consider that the abrogation doctrine is false is Taqleed (following) of their ancestors. They could not bring themselves to reject an established doctrine, even if it is a false one.

This is the long and short of it. Religions are particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. Inherent in religion is a belief in something and a following of someone, with strong resistance to any doubts about that. The key point of course is that this belief is in God and the following is of His prophet, not any other belief or any other person.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 21 Sep 2010, 18:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
That was an obvious inconsistency.

Same complaint I had about Zaid's book. An emphatic statement of principle followed by blatant violation of the principle without as much as a comment about the discrepancy.

I started reading Dr. Zayd's book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, and immediately, in the introduction, the inconsistencies are abound! For example,

  • On page 5, he says that only God, the Wise Law Giver, has the authority to abrogate. Then at the end of the same paragraph, he says he could not just dismiss all abrogation claims without discussing them in order to show which ones are invalid and which ones are valid. How can that be if the only authorized One does not say?

    In the foreword to the book, Muhammad Yusri says that Dr. Zayd favored the opinions of Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal, who said that the Quran cannot abrogate the Sunna except if there is a collaborating Sunna that confirms the abrogation. Doesn't that contradict his assertion that only God may abrogate?

  • On page 6, he says that the conclusion of abrogation is a most serious one, that cannot be made by analysis (اجتهاد) but only by an authentic narration tracing back to the Prophet, peace be upon him. He further emphasized this point by saying that any claim of abrogation that does not meet this criterion is a claim without evidence and therefore cannot be accepted.

    Well, no claim of abrogation meets this criterion! So, why did he approve five of them?

    In the next paragraph, he notes how seriously the Sahaaba took the subject and how they emphasized that no one should issue rulings or preach without first knowing what was abrogated and what abrogated it! Didn't he just finish proving that this cannot be done?

  • On page 19, he fully quotes Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri, presumably because he agrees with him, who wrote (my translation),
    Ibn Hazm Azh-Zhaahiri wrote:
    It is not lawful for a Muslim who believes in God and the Final Day, to say about something in the Quran or the Sunna: this is abrogated, except with certainty. Because God, may He be Mighty and prominent, says, "And We have not sent a Messenger except in order to be obeyed, by permission of God" (4:64) and "Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord" (7:3).

    So, everything that God sent down in the Quran or on the tongue of His Messenger, He has mandated to be followed. If anyone says about any of it that it's abrogated, then he has mandated that it is not obeyed, and annulled the mandate to follow it. This is raw disobedience of God, may He be exalted. It is an exposed disagreement. Unless there is proof to the truth of his words, or else he is an inventor of lies and a falsifier. Whoever allows other than what we've said, his opinions amount to annulling the entire law, since there is no difference between his claim of abrogation and anybody else's and that only leads to invalidating everything in the Quran and the Sunna and that is a renouncement of Islam.

    What has been established with certainty cannot be annulled with suspicion.

    Where did any scholar, classic or modern, including Dr. Zayd, may God bless his soul, prove with certainty any abrogation claim?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2010, 14:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
It is interesting that Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم had a split decision over verse 2:219,


He rejected the claim that it was abrogated by 9:103 or 9:60 but agreed that it was abrogated by 5:90! He rejected the 9:103/2:219 claim which targets the voluntary spending clause of 2:219, but accepted the 5:90/2:219 claim which targets the drunkenness clause.

So, did he believe 2:219 was abrogated or not? It appears that he believed in partial abrogation! Well, if we concede that the interpretation of 2:106 is that the word آية means a verse of the Quran, and that the word ننسخ means to abrogate (I do not concede either one), then verse 2:106, which is the basis for the abrogation doctrine rejects partial abrogation, as it clearly states that what may be abrogated is the entire verse.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 25 Dec 2010, 01:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
In his refutation of Al-Asfahaani's rejection of the 24:2/4:15-16 claim, Dr. Mustafa Zayd points out (see this post) that it makes no sense that the punishment for female homosexuals is severe while the punishment for male homosexuals is mild, if one would accept Al-Asfahaani's interpretation.

The irony is that Dr. Zayd himself has accepted that 4:15 adds a punishment for adulteresses that male adulterers do not suffer: house arrest.

Does he, or does he not, believe that the punishment for adulterers and adulteresses are lopsided? If he does, then why is he objecting to Al-Asfahaani argument? If he does not, then why is he accepting the additional punishment alleged in 4:15?

He can't have it both ways.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 26 Dec 2010, 08:17 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his refutation of Al-Asfahaani's rejection of the 24:2/4:15-16 claim, Dr. Mustafa Zayd points out (see this post) that it makes no sense that the punishment for female homosexuals is severe while the punishment for male homosexuals is mild, if one would accept Al-Asfahaani's interpretation.

The irony is that Dr. Zayd himself has accepted that 4:15 adds a punishment for adulteresses that male adulterers do not suffer: house arrest.

Does he, or does he not, believe that the punishment for adulterers and adulteresses are lopsided? If he does, then why is he objecting to Al-Asfahaani argument? If he does not, then why is he accepting the additional punishment alleged in 4:15?

He can't have it both ways.

You caught him red-handed. I trust that he intends well, may God have mercy on his soul, but you are liable to make a blatant contradiction without realizing it if you start from a conclusion then create the reasoning to justify it.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2010, 17:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Muhammad Nada, in his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, page 119, refutes the 24:2/4:15-16 claim. He quotes Az-Zurqaani, from his book مناهل العرفان في علوم القرآن making two conflicting statements,

On volume 2, page 160, Az-Zurqaani concludes that Ibn Aş-Şaamit's hadeeth "Take from me..." is what abrogated 4:15-16, yet

On page 160, he states, (my translation),
Az-Zurqaani wrote:
There is no preventing reason, intellectual or legal, form abrogation of the Quran by the Sunna, but it did not happen because the evidence is not sound.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2011, 19:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
In his introduction to his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, Hibatullah ibn Salaama gives three verses that affirm the robustness of the Quran,


And

And


You'd think that he will pause and ponder after that and ask the logical question, "Can a book described as قيما (firmly established, supervisory and the standard to measure by) and described as a book that nothing can cause crookedness in, can such a book contain verses or rulings that should no longer be followed?" And the logical question, "Can a book that emphasizes بينة (clear evidence) be abrogated by uncertain evidence emanating from mortals who received no revelation?"

Alas, he doesn't. Instead, he says that the first thing to do when talking about the Quran is to know what was abrogated from it and by what! Why? Because the predecessors did. Then he quotes for support that weak narration (هلكت وأهلكت) attributed to Ali about the man telling stories in a Koofa mosque. He identified the man as Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Daab, a fellow of Abu-Moosa Al-Ash`ari.

In his narration, Ibn Salaama adds the reason Ali was angry at the story teller:
وهو يخلط الأمر بالنهي والإباحة بالحظر

Translation: As he was mixing commands with prohibitions and allowances with disallowances.
What does that imply? That without abrogation, the Quran and/or the Hadeeth turn commands into prohibitions and allowances into disallowances? That they are in conflict and abrogation theories come to their rescue to resolve its conflicts?

It is beyond my comprehension how a scholar like Ibn Salaama would say or imply something like that then follow it, on page 14, with the words, "And my success is only by God, upon Him I rely and to Him I turn", quoting from 11:88.

He even criticizes the exegetes for not doing a good job in this regard, so he took it upon himself to complete what they left out!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 02:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1814
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
In his narration, Ibn Salaama adds the reason Ali was angry at the story teller:
وهو يخلط الأمر بالنهي والإباحة بالحظر

Translation: As he was mixing commands with prohibitions and allowances with disallowances.

I could not follow the point you addressed after this part of the post. I read this part as saying that the person who was lecturing could not understand the difference between commands and prohibitions, and that would be cause enough for the "هلكت وأهلكت" statement by Aly to him, thus the emphasis inferred on the abrogation part of Aly's question to the man is not warranted.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inconsistencies
PostPosted: 18 Jan 2011, 05:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4472
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I could not follow the point you addressed after this part of the post. I read this part as saying that the person who was lecturing could not understand the difference between commands and prohibitions, and that would be cause enough for the "هلكت وأهلكت" statement by Aly to him, thus the emphasis inferred on the abrogation part of Aly's question to the man is not warranted.

But 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.

_________________
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  Next


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:  
It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 04:45

All times are UTC

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