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  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 17:33 abrogate 2:194?
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 19:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 216, says that Ibn Abbaas has stated that

was abrogated by

Al-Khazraji says that the majority disagreed with him but also disagreed amongst them why they disagreed.

Al-Khazraji, as usual, does not take sides.

Where is the contradiction that demands an explanation such as abrogation? Verse 2:194 allows measured retaliation in kind. Verse 17:33 also allows retaliation and emphasizes that it should not be excessive. Isn't that the same thing? What is the limit of retaliation referred to by 17:33? It is what is mentioned in 2:194 and others. Once again, before jumping to the abrogation conclusion, read all verses and you will know what the ruling is!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Aug 2010, 19:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Zayd (who said the abrogating are the fight verses, according to At-Tabari, says Dr. Zayd).

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Abi-Nujayh, Qataada, Muqsim, As-Suddi, Ad-Dhahhaak, Ikrima, `Ataa' (implied, according to Dr. Zayd).
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 17:33 abrogate 2:194?
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 10:26 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Sometimes when I read the verses that are claimed to be an abrogation pair and there is not a trace of contradiction, I think for a moment that you may have entered the wrong numbers when you used the verse tag. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 17:33 abrogate 2:194?
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2010, 18:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Sometimes when I read the verses that are claimed to be an abrogation pair and there is not a trace of contradiction, I think for a moment that you may have entered the wrong numbers when you used the verse tag. :)

Dr. Mustafa Zayd solves this puzzle in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 147-150 (items 896-904). He says that what is claimed abrogated is the phrase والحرمات قصاص (and for [all] violations is legal retribution) which implies that the family of the victim may retaliate for him, while 17:33 mandates that retaliation is the responsibility of the authorities, hence a cause to think abrogation.

He says that this claim is based on a narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas, but that Ibn Al-Jawzi had discredited that narration. Ibn Al-Jawzi also said that Ibn Hanbal is of two opinions on the issue of individual retaliation. So, the matter is indecisive at best and that cannot be a basis to abrogate a verse.

Dr. Zayd relies on the reported circumstances of revelation, which in this case is agreed on that it was about the events of Al-Hudaybiya. God has compensated Muslims for missing the Umra on the month of Zhul-Qi`da of year 6 A.H. when the treaty was negotiated, with an Umra on the same month of the following year, hence the opening of the verse.

That may be, but it should not be the basis for refuting an abrogation claim, because it's interpretive and specific. A general verse like 2:194 is not to be limited by one interpretation and then claimed abrogated or not on that basis.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 17:33 abrogate 2:194?
PostPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 07:23 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He says that what is claimed abrogated is the phrase والحرمات قصاص (and for [all] violations is legal retribution) which implies that the family of the victim may retaliate for him, while 17:33 mandates that retaliation is the responsibility of the authorities, hence a cause to think abrogation.

In 17:33, the word used is "وليه" (translated here as his heir, but really means representative of his interest). I do not think this word can be taken as specifying the authorities and excluding surviving family members. In fact, I don't see that 2:194 is specifying who can enforce the retribution, just what the retribution is.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 17:33 abrogate 2:194?
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2013, 19:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
He says that what is claimed abrogated is the phrase والحرمات قصاص (and for [all] violations is legal retribution) which implies that the family of the victim may retaliate for him, while 17:33 mandates that retaliation is the responsibility of the authorities, hence a cause to think abrogation.

In 17:33, the word used is "وليه" (translated here as his heir, but really means representative of his interest). I do not think this word can be taken as specifying the authorities and excluding surviving family members. In fact, I don't see that 2:194 is specifying who can enforce the retribution, just what the retribution is.

The word ولي is a rich heteronym. It can mean the authorities and can mean the next of kin, among many other semantics. Limiting it to mean the authorities is therefore unwarranted, much like limiting the word آية to mean a verse of the Quran, when it generally means a sign, or limiting the word نسخ to mean abrogation when it means many other semantics, such as amendment and copy.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


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 19 Oct 2019, 08:09

All times are UTC

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