TheMostReadBook.org

In this topic, I like to highlight sweeping claims of abrogation, a more serious claim than abrogation of individual verses. Please reply on that theme. If refuting or supporting a particular claim within the category, it is better to do so in the topic that discusses it.

There are two indexes to help you find the specific topic,

Index of all posts discussing verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse.

Index of topics discussing all other abrogation claims.

Many scholars have stated that the sword verse, by which some meant 9:5, 9:29 or 9:36, has abrogated all verses that preach peaceful co-existence, pardoning others and freedom of religion. This topic discusses all of them.

Of the scholars who so opined, we know of the following:
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Al-Khazraji.

Other scholars have claimed that the sword verses abrogated some such verses but not all. Among them are:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Mas`ood,
Qataada,
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,
Ikrima, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan, Ad-Dhahhaak,
Ibn Zayd, As-Suddi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Makki, An-Nahhaas,
and more.

What is interesting is that all modern day scholars rejected the claim that the sword verse abrogated anything. Even those of them who approved some abrogation claims, such as Shah Waliullah Dehlvi and Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

Saalim ibn Abdillah ibn Umar was one of the scholars who stated that the Zakah verse,

abrogated all charity verses in the Quran. This was reported by An-Nahhaas and narrated by Ikrima and Khalid ibn `Imraan, who also narrated it from Al-Qaasim.

Another name mentioned by Ibn Al-Jawzi is Abu-Ja`far Yazeed ibn Al-Qa`qaa`.

Makki said that charity verses are not abrogated, but have become optional after the Zakah verse and doing charity, in addition to Zakah, is better than not doing it.

I don't quite understand why anybody thought that 9:60 abrogated anything. The verse does one thing only: It confines the recipients of charity to eight categories it names. That's all. It does not say that Zakah is required. In fact, it doesn't mention the word Zakah!

The only verses 9:60 may possibly abrogate are verses where God commands that charity or Zakah be given to a recipient other than the eight named in 9:60. There are no such verses.

Who said it:
Saalim ibn Abdillah ibn Umar,
Abu-Ja`far Yazeed ibn Al-Qa`qaa`.

Interesting topic. The mere notion of "all verses that say XYZ" takes the abrogation ambiguity to a new level. It adds the subjective question of whether a particular verse says that or does not say it. All of this while God says


Categorical claims are also the most blatant evidence of a not-so-hidden agenda in the abrogation doctrine.

Ibn Al`Arabi, who was one of the scholars who said that 9:5 abrogated 124 verses, also said that the Jizya verse,

abrogated 9:5! See this post for a discussion of this claim.


Depends on the order of abrogation. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I suppose they meant it's all invalidated, 9:5 and all that it abrogated. That shrinks the Quran by about 143 verses.

Ibn Salaama said that the epilogue of 9:5 is what abrogated it, i.e., he thought that the opening of 9:5 gave a Carte Blanche to kill all polytheists even if they accept Islam and then that license was curtailed and allowed letting them live if they accept Islam.

This cannot possibly be the opinion of a man of knowledge. That is why I must conclude that what they all talked about, when they talked about "naskh", was not abrogation, invalidation or annulment, but amendment.

The objectionable parts of the above opinion of Ibn Salaama are spelled out, independently of how he or others perceived the meaning of the word naskh.

That did not escape the adversaries of Islam, as Dr. Az-Zalmi points out when he mentions the categorical claim about the Zakah verse.