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.  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 54:46 abrogate 67:16?
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 14:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, pages 735-736, says that

was abrogated by

According to Makki and Ibn Al`Arabi, it was Ibn Habeeb who made that claim. Makki rejects the claim on the basis that 67:16 is a threat.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 28 Aug 2010, 14:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Habeeb,
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
Makki,
Ibn Salaama (who said that Chapter 67 contains no abrogated verses),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Al-`Ataa'iqi, Aş-Şa`di and Dr. Al-Ħusayni (who said that Chapter 67 contains no abrogated verses).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 54:46 abrogate 67:16?
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 22:02 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Give me a break.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 54:46 abrogate 67:16?
PostPosted: 10 Jul 2013, 20:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
According to Makki and Ibn Al`Arabi, it was Ibn Habeeb who made that claim. Makki rejects the claim on the basis that 67:16 is a threat.

While Makki is correct in saying that 67:16 is a threat, that threat can come true. Notice how 54:46 ends with a comparative, "The Hour is more disastrous and more bitter"? How did Ibn Habeeb miss that?

Those addressed in 67:16 may be swallowed by the earth AND face a bigger disaster and bitterness on the Day of Judgment. May God save us from that.

If what both verses say can happen, then neither of them abrogates the other.

Perhaps the point of conflict is seen in the use of the conjunction article بل "Rather", which can be understood to mean the dismissal of what preceded it. So, what preceded it? It's

Therefore, what 54:46 predicts the defeat and withdrawal of "the assembly", which has been interpreted to mean the Quraish polytheists. Verse 54:46 does not cancel that prediction, which did become true; it adds to it the frightening promise of the punishment in the hereafter. No cause to think abrogation in such context.

_________________
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.  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 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, 11:38

All times are UTC

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