Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 1, pages 464-465 (items 655-656), writes that Abdul Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi wrote about the difference between the scholars that
was abrogated, but without saying what they said has abrogated it! He said that Ali said it was not.
Al-Baghdaadi said that
الماعون was interpreted as the three things the Prophet (PBUH) said were free for all: water, fire and grass. Others had other interpretations. For instance, Ikrima said, "The head of
الماعون is the Zakah and the least of it is the sieve, the pale and the needle." Ibn Katheer liked that a lot and said that it leads to his chosen interpretation of the verse as "And those who leave out aid by money or other benefit." Muhammad ibn Ka`b interpreted
الماعون as المعروف (what is recognized as good).
Aside from all that, how can an abrogation claim be made without naming the abrogating? And what does that claim mean in effect? Do the claimants believe that it OK now to prevent small acts of kindness?
Login
Questions
Search
