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





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2010, 17:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Arabi stated that the so-called "sword verse," (9:5) abrogated all verses that teach pardoning, clemency, negotiation, co-existence, etc., with the polytheists. Extremists adopt this view to justify their all-out war against non-Muslims. Here is the verse,



On the surface of it, it appears that the verse instructs the total annihilation of the polytheist unless they accept Islam, if it is taken in isolation. The Quran is to be taken in its totality, because the overlooking of other verses, which many abrogation claims do, puts a Muslim dangerously close to the warning in this verse,


Therefore, one must be very careful before jumping to the a sweeping conclusion like this. The fact of the matter is that 9:5 applies only to the Arabian peninsula. This is understood from the hadeeth of the prophet, peace be upon him, in which he said, "Get the polytheist out of the Arabian peninsula," narrated by Ibn `Abbaas and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer and reported and rated authentic by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

When the Prophet (PBUH) sent letters to neighboring kings inviting them to Islam, he did not threaten them with war if they didn't and he never told his followers to do that either. The practice of the Sahaaba when they conquered foreign lands is that they always allowed the natives to keep practicing their religions. If they believed that 9:5 mandated the conversion of the whole world to Islam or be killed, they would not have let them practice their religions. God strictly prohibits forced conversions, as He mentions in so many verses, for instance,


And


To name a few. The claim of abrogation made about 9:5 is bizarre to say the least. In fact, according to As-Suyooti, this verse

was claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse. He correctly condemns that claim, saying
وكذا قوله تعالى "أليس الله بأحكم الحاكمين" قيل إنها مما نسخ بآية السيف وليس كذلك لأنه تعالى أحكم الحاكمين أبدا لا يقبل هذا الكلام النسخ وإن كان معناه الأمر بالتفويض وترك المعاقبة

He said that obviously God is and always will be the most just of judges. The verse cannot be abrogated and it means a command to defer to God and abstain from punishing. And so is this verse,

which Shayzhala in his book "Al-Burhaan" said was abrogated by the sword verse, which in turn was abrogated by the Jizya verse, 9:29. As in all abrogation claims, there is no explicit statement from God or His Messenger, nor a consensus opinion of Islamic scholars, that the sword verse abrogated anything.

BTW, calling 9:5 the sword verse is itself an opinion made by scholars and went on unchallenged, except that other scholars called 9:29 the sword verse instead.

EDIT: I got Ibn Al-`Arabi's book الناسخ والمنسوخ, and the number of claims he makes about the sword verse adds up to 76, not 124 as has been widely reported.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 06:07 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
The context of 9:5 are the verses 9:1-4. Aren't the verses talking about the specific situation between the Prophet PBUH and the polytheists at the time and place of the conquest of Mecca?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2010, 16:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The context of 9:5 are the verses 9:1-4. Aren't the verses talking about the specific situation between the Prophet PBUH and the polytheists at the time and place of the conquest of Mecca?

It sure is but that's not what the extremist want to hear. A violent person full of hate can only see enemies. Recall what Al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf Ath-Thaqafi said when he took over? He looked at all the people sitting down in the mosque and said, "I see heads that came to fruition and it's time to pluck them!"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2010, 19:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One of the 124 verses claimed to be abrogated, is, believe it or not, 2:83!

Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about that in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan," as follows,

ذكر الآية الرابعة: قوله تعالى "وقولوا للناس حسنا". اختلف المفسرون في المخاطبين بهذا على قولين: الأول أنهم اليهود والتقدير من سألكم عن شأن محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فاصدقوه وبينوا له صفته ولا تكتموا أمره، قاله ابن عباس وابن جبير وابن جريج ومقاتل. والثاني أمة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم اختلف أرباب هذا القول، فقال الحسن مروهم بالمعروف وانهوهم عن المنكر، وقال أبو العالية وقولوا للناس معروفا، وقال محمد ابن علي بن الحسين كلموهم بما تحبون أن يقولوا لكم، فعلى هذا الآية محكمة وذهب قوم إلى أن المراد بذلك مساهلة المشركين في دعائهم إلى الإسلام، فالآية عند هؤلاء منسوخة بآية السيف. وهذا قول بعيد لأن لفظ الناس عام فتخصيصه بالكفار يفتقر إلى دليل ولا دليل ها هنا، ثم إن إنذار الكفار من الحسنى

He quotes several interpretations of "Say good to people" all make the verse not abrogated. Then he says that some claimed that the sentence means "Be easy on the polytheists when calling them to Islam" and thus it is abrogated by the sword verse. He dismisses that claim saying that the words are general and cannot be limited to the disbelievers without evidence and there is no such evidence here.

I just wonder why it was hard to interpret "Say good to people!" What is there that needs further elaboration? Abul-Aaliya understood it just fine. He said it means "Say to people what is recognized as good."

He also says that giving the believers a warning is a "speaking good." Thus, the claim that it is abrogated by the sword verse is invalid even if 2:83 implies going easy on the polytheists. Besides, the context addresses the Children of Israel which was pointed out by Ibn Abbaas and others.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 196-197, reports that `Ataa' opined that 2:83 was not abrogated and the words "say good to people" means "command the recognized as good and forbid the objectionable".

Dr. Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 45-48 (items 758-763) refutes this case on three bases,
  1. Different addressees: Verse 2:83 addresses the Children of Israel, while the sword verse address Muslims.
  2. Different people the addressees are referenced to: Verse 2:83 refers to all people, while the sword verse refers to the polytheists.
  3. No contradiction: Muslims are to say good even to their enemies and even in battle.

Ibn Salaama tells an interesting story about this verse: Ibn Jurayj said to `Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah, "Your talks are attended by the good and by the wicked. May I be harsh with the wicked?" He replied, "No. Do you not recite 2:83?"

In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 11, Dr. Husayn Nassaar reports Dr. Subhi As-Saalih's opinion about this claim as follows,

Dr. Subhi As-Saalih wrote:
The weirdest thing is how exegetes allowed themselves to say that abrogation occurs even in reported historical fact! How can any mind envision a replacement of a historical fact, complete with all events and words that took place in it? They claim that the sword verse is abrogating. And what about the claim about 2:83, which is clear from its context that it is a report about when the Children of Israel took the Covenant.


Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 100-101, mentions that Al-Hasan and Ath-Thawri both understood the verse to be addressing Muslims to call on people to do what'God ordered done and avoid what God forbade.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Jabeer (At-Tabari),
Ibn Jurayj,
Muqaatil,
Qataada (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Al-Hasan,
Abul-`Aaliya,
Sufyaan Ath-Thawri,
Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn (Al-Baaqir), (may have been ibn Al-Hasan, per Ibn Salaama),
`Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi (according to Aş-Şa`di and quoted in detail from his exegesis, volume 3, page 178, by Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Subhi As-Saalih.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 9:29 or 9:5 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 14 Jan 2010, 16:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword or Jizya verses is

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about that case,

ذكر الآية السادسة: قوله تعالى "فاعفوا واصفحوا حتى يأتي الله بأمره". قال المفسرون أمر الله بالعفو والصفح عن أهل الكتاب قبل أن يؤمر بقتالهم، ثم نسخ العفو والصفح بقوله "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله" الآية، هذا مروي عن ابن مسعود وابن عباس رضي الله عنهما وغيرهما. أخبرنا أبو بكر بن حبيب العامري قال أخبرنا علي بن الفضل قال أخبرنا عبد الصمد قال أخبرنا ابن حموية قال أخبرنا إبراهيم بن حريم قال بن عبد الحميد قال بنا مسلم بن إبراهيم وأخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أخبرنا أبو الفضل البقال قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أخبرنا إسحاق الكاذي قال حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال حدثنا عبد الصمد كلاهما عن همام بن يحيى عن قتادة قال أمر الله نبيه أن يعفو عنهم ويصفح حتى يأتي الله بأمره فأنزل في براءة "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله ولا باليوم الآخر" الآية فنسخها بهذه الآية وأمره فيها بقتال أهل الكتاب حتى يسلموا أو يقروا بالجزية. قال أحمد وحدثنا عبد الرزاق قال حدثنا معمر عن قتادة "فاعفوا واصفحوا" نسختها "فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم". أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أخبرنا علي بن أيوب قال أخبرنا ابن شاذان قال أخبرنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أخبرنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا أحمد بن محمد المروزي قال أخبرنا آدم بن أبي إياس قال حدثنا أبو جعفر عن الربيع بن أنس عن أبي العالية "فاعفوا واصفحوا" قال نسخ بقوله "قاتلوا الذين لا يؤمنون بالله ولا باليوم الآخر" الآية. فصل: واعلم أن تحقيق الكلام دون التحريف فيه أن يقال إن هذه الآية ليست بمنسوخة لأنه لم يأمر بالعفو مطلقا وإنما أمر به إلى غاية وبين الغاية بقوله "حتى يأتي الله بأمره" وما بعد الغاية يكون حكمه مخالفا لما قبلها وما هذا سبيله لا يكون أحدهما ناسخا للآخر بل يكون الأول قد نقضت مدته بغايته والآخر محتاجا إلى حكم آخر. وقد ذهب إلى ما قالته جماعة من فقهاء المفسرين وهو الصحيح. وهذا إذا قلنا إن المراد العفو عن قتالهم، وقد قال الحسن هذا فيما بينكم وبينهم دون ترك حق الله تعالى حتى يأتي الله بالقيامة. وقال غيره بالعقوبة فعلى هذا يكون الأمر بالعفو محكما لا منسوخا

Ibn Al-Jawzi refutes the abrogation case by explaining the time element in 2:109. He said the call for pardon in 2:109 was timed until "God brings forth His command", thus the Jizya verse or the sword verse constitute that awaited command and therefore they complement rater than abrogate 2:109.

We also learn the names of some of the scholars who took the position that the Jizya verse, 9:29 abrogated 2:109. They are, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi: Ibn `Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood, Qataada, and Abul-`Aaliya.

And those who took the position that the sword verse, 9:5, abrogated 2:109 include: Qataada.

Al-Hasan's opinion is that the sword verse applies to matters unsettled between Muslims and the polytheists only.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Ma`ood, Qataada (in one report) and Abul-`Aaliya (who all said, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, that the abrogating is 9:29),
Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Masood, Al-Baaqir, Abul-`Aaliya, As-Suddi and Ar-Rabee` (who all said, according to Aş-Şa`di, that the abrogating is 9:5),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di (Al-Yamaani),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Qataada (in another report),
Al-Hasan,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 20:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is

Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi reports about scholars opinions in regards to abrogation of this verse,

ذكر الآية الرابعة والثلاثين: قوله تعالى "لا إكراه في الدين". اختلف العلماء هل هذا القدر من الآية محكم أو منسوخ. فذهب قوم إلى أنه محكم، ثم اختلفوا في وجه إحكامه على قولين:
الأول أنه من العام المخصوص، وأنه خص منه أهل الكتاب، فإنهم لا يكرهون على الإسلام، بل يخيرون بينه وبين أداء الجزية. وهذا المعنى مروي عن ابن عباس ومجاهد وقتادة. وكان السبب في نزول هذه الآية ما أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحق الكاذي قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا علي بن عاصم قال بنا داود بن أبي هند عن عامر قال: كانت المرأة في الأنصار إذا كانت لا يعيش لها ولد تدعي المقلاة، فكانت المرأة إذا كانت كذلك نذرت إن هي أعاشت ولدا تصبغه يهوديا، فأدرك الإسلام طوائف من أولاد الأنصار وهم كذلك، فقالوا إنما صبغناهم يهودا ونحن نرى أن اليهود خير عباد الأوثان، فإما إذ جاء الله بالإسلام فإنا نكرههم على الإسلام. فأنزل الله تعالى "لا إكراه في الدين". قال أحمد وحدثنا حسين قال بنا أبو هلال قال بنا داود قال قال عامر "لا إكراه في الدين" كانت تكون المرأة مقلاة في الجاهلية لا يعيش لها ولد فكانت تنذر الله عليها إن عاش لها ولد لتسلمنه في خير دين تعلمه، ولم يكن في الجاهلية دين أفضل من اليهودية فتسلمه في اليهودية. فلما جاء الله بالإسلام قالوا يا نبي الله كنا لا نعلم أو لا نرى دينا أفضل من اليهودية فلما جاء الله بالإسلام نرتجعهم؟ فأنزل الله عز وجل "لا إكراه في الدين" لا تكرهوهم ولا ترجعوهم. قال أحمد وبنا وكيع قال بنا سفيان عن خصيف عن مجاهد قال: كان ناس مسترضعون في بني قريظة فأرادوا أن يكرهوهم على الإسلام فنزلت "لا إكراه في الدين". أخبرنا عبد الوهاب الحافظ قال أبنا ابن جبرون وأبو طاهر الباقلاوي قالا أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا ابن كامل قال بنا محمد بن سعد قال أخبرني أبي قال حدثني عمي عن أبيه عن جده عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما "لا إكراه في الدين" قال وذلك لما دخل الناس في الإسلام وأعطى أهل الكتاب الجزية.
والثاني أن المراد به ليس الدين ما يدين به في الظاهر على جهة الإكراه عليه ولم يشهد به القلب وينطوي عليه الضمائر وإنما الدين هو المعتقد بالقلب. وهذا قول أبي بكر بن الأنباري.

والقول الثاني أنه منسوخ لأن هذه الآية نزلت قبل الأمر بالقتال، ثم نسخت بآية السيف. وهذا قول الضحاك والسدي وابن زيد. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود قال بنا جعفر بن محمد قال بنا عمرو بن طلحة القناد قال بنا أسباط بن نصر عن إسماعيل السدي فأسنده إلى من فوقه "لا إكراه في الدين" قال نسخ وأمر بقتال أهل الكتاب في براءة. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسن بن قريش قال أبنا أبو إسحاق البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال بنا حمر بن نوح قال بنا أبو معاذ قال بنا أبو مصلح عن الضحاك "لا إكراه في الدين" قال نزلت هذه الآية قبل أن يؤمر بالقتال. قال أبو بكر وذكر المسيب بن واضح عن بقية ابن الوليد عن عتبة بن أبي حكيم عن سليمان بن موسى قال هذه الآية منسوخة "لا إكراه في الدين" نسختها "يا أيها النبي جاهد الكفار والمنافقين"
اهـ

The gist of the above discussion that relates to this topic is that 2:256 is claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse (9:5) and some said that it was abrogated by the Jizya verse (9:29). The scholars who took the position that the sword verse abrogated 2:256 include Ad-Dhahhaak, Ibn Zayd and As-Suddi. Of the scholars who said it was the Jizya verse that abrogated is Sulaymaan ibn Moosa.

He also mentions that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Qataada said that 2:225 was not abrogated but it specified one of two options for the people of the Book: Either accept Islam or pay the Jizya.

Once again the discussion does not appear to consider that several cases are addressed. One case is people of the Book living under Muslim rule. They have to pay the Jizya, a defense tax. As I mentioned before, this is fair since Muslims pay the Zakah and have to enlist in the army when called upon to serve, while non-Muslims do not have to.

The second case is non-Muslims who are not under Muslim rule. Those are not to be fought, forced to accept Islam or pay Jizya, per 2:256. We know this because God says quite clearly that Muslims are never to initiate aggression; Muslims can only fight those who fight them,

I wouldn't be surprised if this verse is one of those claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse!

The third and last case is the case of polytheists living in Arabia. We know that from an authentic hadeeth of the Prophet, peace be upon him, which I quoted in the OP. That is the subject of the sword verse. God has decreed that no polytheists can live in the holy land of Arabia. He has not required this of any other country.

Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani reports in his book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, page 82, that some scholars have made the analogy that the divorce, emancipation and sale by force are invalid, thus, they concluded, that 2:256 remains valid and is not abrogated. Good analogy. He refers to books of comparative jurisprudence but does not name any.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Mas`ood,
Ad-Dhahhaak (in one report),
Zayd ibn Asalam Al-`Adawi (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Zayd and As-Suddi,
Sulaymaan ibn Moosa,
Al-Mansoor Billah,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Umar ibn Al-Khataab (by his practice),
Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Qataada, Ad-Dhahhaak (in another report), Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan, Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan and Maalik said that 2:256 was not abrogated but it specified one of two options for the people of the Book: Either accept Islam or pay the Jizya.
Abu-Bakr ibn Al-Anbaari (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ash-Shawkaani,
Ibn Katheer,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani,
Al-Qaffaal,
Az-Zamakhshari,
Muhammad Abduh,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ihab Hasan Abduh,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2010, 23:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The gist of the above discussion that relates to this topic is that 2:256 is claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse (9:5) and some said that it was abrogated by the Jizya verse (9:29). The scholars who took the position that the sword verse abrogated 2:256 include Ad-Dhahhaak, Ibn Zayd and As-Suddiyy. Of the scholars who said it was the Jizya verse that abrogated is Sulaymaan ibn Moosa.

He also mentions that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Qataada said that 2:256 was not abrogated but it specified one of two options for the people of the Book: Either accept Islam or pay the Jizya.

Very useful information as it states explicitly who was of which opinion, and it is clear that the abrogation opinion here is far from being unanimous. I just want to draw attention to something that is mentioned in the commentaries on 2:256, which is the fact that the Arabic construct for "There is no compulsion in religion" is linguistically an absolute form of negation called " نفي الجنس " which implies that compulsion does not exist in religion, period. Once people accept the verse as valid, it becomes pretty difficult to justify the extremely intolerant positions that some advocate.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 05:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
وكان السبب في نزول هذه الآية ما أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عبيد الله البقال قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحق الكاذي قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثني أبي قال بنا علي بن عاصم قال بنا داود بن أبي هند عن عامر قال: كانت المرأة في الأنصار إذا كانت لا يعيش لها ولد تدعي المقلاة، فكانت المرأة إذا كانت كذلك نذرت إن هي أعاشت ولدا تصبغه يهوديا، فأدرك الإسلام طوائف من أولاد الأنصار وهم كذلك، فقالوا إنما صبغناهم يهودا ونحن نرى أن اليهود خير عباد الأوثان، فإما إذ جاء الله بالإسلام فإنا نكرههم على الإسلام. فأنزل الله تعالى "لا إكراه في الدين"
اهـ

This passage states the "reason for revelation" of 2:256. It describes related events at the time the verse was revealed. The details of the events are not important for what I am going to say, so there is no need to translate them here. I just want to make a remark that is not directly related to abrogation but I feel very strongly about it. The expression "reason for revelation" is not appropriate IMHO and should be replaced by "circumstances at the time of revelation." Only God knows the reason for revelation. He may choose a time where the verse would be directly applicable to a specific on-going situation, which makes the verse instantly appreciated and put into practice, but that is quite different from that situation being the reason for the revelation.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2010, 03:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that this verse was claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He does not say who made the claim and seems to agree with it.

This is what he wrote,
ذكر الآية السادسة عشرة: قوله تعالى "فأعرض عنهم وعظهم". قال المفسرون في هذه الآية تقديم وتأخير تقديره فعظهم فإن امتنعوا عن الإجابة فأعرض. وهذا كان قبل الأمر بالقتال ثم نسخ ذلك بآية السيف

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 284-285, says that Ibn Abbaas made that claim and Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Jawzi and Makki agreed with him, but that the majority does not.

He adds that some said the verse is not abrogated because the end of it allows the use of the sword if people do not accept the Prophet (!) They interpret that from the clause وقل لهم في أنفسهم قولا بليغا (speak to them a far-reaching word). He says that this interpretation is backed up by the opening clause in the next verse,

I respectfully disagree with the argument, but not with the conclusion. Verse 4:64 states that prophets are to be obeyed. That does not mean they will be, nor does it mean that they can force people to obey them! Those who interpret the verse that way seem to think that الطاعة (obedience) is the same thing as الانطياع (acquiescence). It's not; the former is done willingly, the latter unwillingly.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd's refutation is simple. He says in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 26 (item 731), that the context is about the hypocrites. By definition, they are Muslims and therefore are not included in what the sword verse talks about.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 127, rejects this claim. He says that "turning aside" does not mean leaving out the punishment of the polytheists, but rather it means to be upset with somebody and not show friendliness toward them. Presumably then he believes that such turning aside does not preclude fighting.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Makki,
Ibn Al-Jawzi.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 06 Feb 2010, 04:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that one of the verses claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is


Here is how he refutes that claim,

ذكر الآية التاسعة عشرة: قوله تعالى "ومن تولى فما أرسلناك عليهم حفيظا". روى أبو صالح عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال معناه فما أرسلناك عليهم رقيبا تؤخذ بهم. وقال السدي وابن قتيبة حفيظا أي محاسبا لهم. وقد ذهب قوم منهم عبد الرحمن بن زيد إلى أن هذه الآية نزلت في بداية الأمر ثم نسخت بآية السيف، وفيه بعد لأنه إذا كان تفسيرها ما ذكرنا فأي وجه للنسخ


He explains that حفيظا means keeper or responsible, so where is any aspect of abrogation?

If 4:80 was abrogated then it means that the mission of the prophet has changed and that he has become a keeper or responsible for all who have not accepted Islam! Those who claim that the sword verse abrogated 4:80 must mean that the prophet now has to convert the whole world by force or kill them. If someone refuses to convert and thus is killed, then does the prophet still remain responsible for that person's disbelief or does fighting him absolve him of the responsibility? It boggles the mind that someone will so think.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 284-285, claims that Ibn Abbaas made the claim of abrogation and said that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and Ibn Salaama agreed but Ibn Al-Jawzi did not.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zayd,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi),
As-Suddi, Ibn Qateeba,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied by his referral to similarly worded verses),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 19 Nov 2019, 15:07

All times are UTC

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