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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Was 22:28 abrogated?
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 19:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
An-Nahhaas claimed that

was abrogated, but failed to mention what abrogated it or the reason he believes it was!

How can one refute, or confirm, a non-existent argument?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 19:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas (implied at first reading),
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn (who said that Udhiya abrogated `Aqeeqa, according to Dr. Zayd, thus he may have thought that 22:28 is abrogating).

Against:
An-Nahhaas (refuting Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn's ruling about the `Aqeeqa being abrogated by Udhiya, explained Dr. Zayd),
Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal (implied, if the abrogating is thought to be the `Aqeeqa),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 22:28 abrogated?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 01:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
But failed to mention what abrogated it or the reason he believes it was!
How can one refute, or confirm, a non-existent argument?

This provides a good example in our write-up about how lightly scholars have taken the 'decision' to abrogate a verse in the Quran.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 22:28 abrogated?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 04:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
This provides a good example in our write-up about how lightly scholars have taken the 'decision' to abrogate a verse in the Quran.

And how could they do that after reading,

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Was 22:28 abrogated?
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2010, 18:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
An-Nahhaas claimed that 22:28 was abrogated, but failed to mention what abrogated it or the reason he believes it was!

Thanks to Dr. Mustafa Zayd, I now have An-Nahhaas's argument. Dr. Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 244-247 (items 1108-1111), explains that An-Nahhaas understood the verse to be talking about the `Aqeeqa, a feast called seven days after a child is born. In that feast, one or two sheep are slaughtered and the guests are invited to eat them. An-Nahhaas first says that Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn has opined that Udhiya (sacrifice on the 10th of Zhul-Hijja) abrogates all slaughters. Nobody else agrees with him, since `Aqeeqa, for example, is an established Sunna and the consensus is that it was not abrogated. Thus opined Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal.

So, An-Nahhaas was not actually for this claim, but against it.

Dr. Zayd says that An-Nahhaas interpreted Muhammad ibn Ali's ruling was about all other pre-Islam slaughters, but `Aqeeqa is Islamic. Besides, that means that ibn Ali's ruling implies that he believed 22;28 is abrogating, not abrogated, since the context is clearly the pilgrimage; the Chapter is called The Pilgrimage!

Scholars differed on whether Udhiya and `Aqeeqa are manadtory. Abu-Haneefa mandates the Udhiya, while Al-Hasan Al-Basri mandates the `Aqeeqa. The majority, however, see both as strong recommendations and emphasized Sunnas.

Finally, Dr. Zayd discusses that what may have been thought abrogated was the provision to eat from the sacrificed meat, since some people thought they shouldn't. The Prophet (PBUH) assured them that they can and encouraged them to. The one time he forbade them was explained the following year by the fact that there were many poor people at that time who deserved that meat more.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests


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 28 Mar 2024, 23:07

All times are UTC

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