TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Inconsistencies http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2658 |
Page 3 of 4 |
Author: | Linguistic [ 30 Aug 2010, 13:33 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 30 Aug 2010, 20:43 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 21 Sep 2010, 18:03 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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,
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 29 Nov 2010, 14:45 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 25 Dec 2010, 01:45 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 26 Dec 2010, 08:17 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 28 Dec 2010, 17:16 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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.
|
Author: | Linguistic [ 17 Jan 2011, 19:17 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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! |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 18 Jan 2011, 02:41 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 18 Jan 2011, 05:23 ] |
Post subject: | Re: Inconsistencies |
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. |
Page 3 of 4 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |