TheMostReadBook.org http://forum.themostreadbook.org/ |
|
Key Questions http://forum.themostreadbook.org/viewtopic.php?f=130&t=2826 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 29 Oct 2013, 05:37 ] |
Post subject: | Key Questions |
In no particular order, each post will pose a bottom-line question where a 'verdict' is needed after considering all the evidence and analysis. The verdict is of course our opinion, but it should be what we believe in our heart of hearts. Within each post, the answer, argument for the answer, and links to relevant posts should be included. |
Author: | Pragmatic [ 29 Oct 2013, 05:40 ] |
Post subject: | List of Key Questions |
Question 1: Was any verse revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and recited as part of the Quran at some point, but later not included in the text of the Quran? The cause could be abrogation or being caused to be forgotten. Question 2: There is more than one interpretation of 2:106, including different meanings for its words. In our view, what is the single most plausible interpretation of the verse, in brief, specific, and complete terms? Question 3: Are there cases where a hadeeth (spoken words by the Prophet PBUH that explicitly set a rule) was later abrogated? If so, what is a crisp reason why such abrogation is possible for a hadeeth and not possible for a Quranic verse? Question 4: Among all the abrogation claims of Quranic verses, which one is the most challenging to refute and why? What is the most compelling argument for refuting it? Question 5: How could the majority of renowned scholars, who had access to the same evidence that we studied here, all arrive at the same wrong conclusion? |
Author: | Linguistic [ 31 Oct 2013, 21:12 ] |
Post subject: | Q1: Verses that are gone |
Pragmatic wrote: Question 1: Was any verse revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and recited as part of the Quran at some point, but later not included in the text of the Quran? The cause could be abrogation or being caused to be forgotten. The only way to know that is to have indisputably authentic, unambiguous, authoritative text that says so. There is none. Therefore, my humble conclusion is that it did not happen. See these relevant posts for more details:
Pragmatic: I agree with the answer. Authenticity is the only relevant point here, and the threshold for authenticity should be the same as what was applied to the actual Quranic verses. None of the above alleged cases comes even close to that, and verses 87:6-7 do not imply that verses were forgotten. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 23 Nov 2013, 20:17 ] |
Post subject: | Q2: The most plausible interpretation of 2:106 |
Pragmatic wrote: Question 2: There is more than one interpretation of 2:106, including different meanings for its words. In our view, what is the single most plausible interpretation of the verse, in brief, specific, and complete terms? To properly answer this question, one ought to examine the following sub-questions first:
The context of 2:106 tells of the envy suffered by the disbelievers among the People of the Book when they learned about the new revelation they are required to obey (the Quran) and that it was revealed to an Arab. Verse 2:105 responds to the latter and verse 2:106 answers the former. Both answers are given as general principles. The first answer does not specifically say why Muhammad in particular was chosen for the final Message. Likewise, verse 2:106 does not specifically say why the Torah was no longer to be followed. That point is explained elsewhere in the Quran. IMHO, the most plausible interpretation of 2:106 is the following. To deniers of the Quran's authority over prior scriptures: Know that if or whenever God makes changes to any of His signs, or cause any of them to be forgotten, He would always replace it with an even more impressive sign, or one similar. The Quran is such an impressive sign. This should not come as a surprise to anybody, or be cause for skepticism, since God can do whatever He wills. You may wish to study this topic for much more details. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 17 Dec 2013, 22:50 ] |
Post subject: | Q3: Abrogation of hadeeths |
Pragmatic wrote: Question 3: Are there cases where a hadeeth (spoken words by the Prophet PBUH that explicitly set a rule) was later abrogated? If so, what is a crisp reason why such abrogation is possible for a hadeeth and not possible for a Quranic verse? Indeed, there have been several instances of a hadeeth commanding one thing then a subsequent hadeeth commanding something incompatible or explicitly revoking the previous command. Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani did a marvelous job identifying a host of these occurrences. There are two reasons, IMHO, for this:
The reason abrogation can occur in the Sunna but not in the Quran is that the law-giver in the Sunna, unless it explicitly states that it is a divine command, was a human being capable of being right or wrong, while the law-giver of the Quran is infallible and has all-encompassing knowledge. The reason I am confident that abrogation did happen in the Sunna is because the Prophet (PBUH) said so unambiguously, e.g., with words like "I had previously ordered you to ... but now you may..." The reason I am confident that abrogation did not happen in the Quran is because neither God nor the Prophet (PBUH) have ever said so. We humans have no other way of knowing that. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 21 Dec 2013, 19:49 ] |
Post subject: | Q4: Most challenging abrogation claim |
Pragmatic wrote: Question 4: Among all the abrogation claims of Quranic verses, which one is the most challenging to refute and why? What is the most compelling argument for refuting it? In order for an abrogation case to be irrefutable, one of the following criteria must be present:
Absent that, the matter is in reality a conjecture, an interpretation, and therefore can never be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That said, there are verses where there is reasonable cause for one to think that an abrogation has happened. We show in this project that in all such cases, that reasonable cause is mitigated, sometimes easily and other times with deeper analysis. A reasonable cause, IMHO, to think abrogation of a verse, may be one of the following.
I consider the following cases to fit one or both of the above criteria: 3:85/2:62, 5:5/6:121, 4:11-12/2:180, 2:286/2:284, 8:66/8:65, 58:13/58:12, 73:20/73:1-4, [List the rest of such cases here] See the individual topics for each one for a detailed analysis of the refutation argument(s) we offer or others have. After considering them all, I personally have found 58:13/58:12 to be the most challenging. It fits both criteria above. But it was never high on my list because the command in it is clearly not a mandate. Interestingly enough, it was not high on your list either, Pragmatic, because you believed it applied only at the time of the Prophet (PBUH). The challenge in this case is the following. Unlike the case of 2:187/2:183, which is structured similarly but where the first command is not detailed, the command in 58:12 is unambiguous. And unlike the case of 73:20/73:1-4, which is also structured similarly but where the two commands are clearly addressed to two different addressees, the commands in 58:12 and 58:13 are addressed to the same people. And unlike the case of 8:66/8:65, which is also structured similarly, but where the two commands are contingent upon different criteria, the contingency in 58:12 (financial hardship) seems to be removed from 58:13. That is why it took us the longest to refute. The way I finally understood these two verses allowed me to dismiss the claim of abrogation for the following reasons:
Thus, the two verses taken together address four possibilities of reaction to the token charity request from God before one would seek private counsel with the Prophet (PBUH):
The fact reported in the literature that no one offered the token charity but Ali, and only once, does not mean the recommendation was rescinded. It only means that Muslims chose not to go for it, especially after they were assured by 58:13 that they never had to. |
Author: | Linguistic [ 11 Jan 2014, 16:39 ] |
Post subject: | Q5: How can all those scholars be wrong? |
Pragmatic wrote: Question 5: How could the majority of renowned scholars, who had access to the same evidence that we studied here, all arrive at the same wrong conclusion? We discussed this very question in the topic "How did this happen?". And we concluded that there are probably three broad categories of factors involved:
I'd summarize my guesses of an answer to this puzzling question as a combination of the following factors: Conformity:
Following the precedence:
Bundling:
Are these reasons legitimate? Do they justify the creation and maintaining of the abrogation doctrine? IMHO, they are all understandable but none of them is legitimate. Because the end result is the annulment of some rulings of God, without clear authority from Him or from His Messenger, and based solely on human interpretation. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |