TheMostReadBook.org

I was hoping we'll get some support here from the newly discovered reference of Dr. Mostafa Zaid. No such luck . He believes 8:65 is abrogated (among only 6 verses that he considers abrogated).

However, this reference (included in the bibliography thread) says that the following scholars think that 8:65 is not abrogated.

النحاس
مكي بن أبي طالب
ابن الجوزي

We should look up their opinions to see what rationale they used.

This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes in his book, "Nawaasikh Al-Qur'aan", about this case,


That excerpt does not say that Ibn Al-Jawzi opposed abrogation in this case, but it does report that An-Nahhaas did. His argument confirms one of mine, namely, that the requirement is 8:65 was still in effect and is the better option much like fasting while traveling is the better option even though breaking the fast in that case is allowed. It's an easing of requirement, a license, not a new requirement.

I agree with the essence of this argument, but we need to be careful about the choice of words. If 8:65 is a requirement and 8:66 makes it an option, albeit a better option with better reward, then it is difficult to argue that 8:65 is not abrogated, as it was a requirement and it no longer is. The easing interpretation is a commendable aspect, but it does not address the abrogation question per se. IMHO, the two ways out of the abrogation claim are

1. The 10-to-1 prescription in 8:65 is a requirement, but the addressees are different from those in 8:66. Namely, 8:65 is confined to the early Muslims at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) while 8:66 extends to all Muslims (including the early Muslims, but only effective as of the revelation of 8:66 and that would be covered by the 'dynamic' argument).

2. The 10-to-1 prescription in 8:65 is not a requirement, but either a statement of fact (prediction or encouragement), or a non-binding directive (as the word "persuade" in the verse would support).

Under both scenarios, the value of the 10-to-1 prescription in 8:65 remains intact. It is either showing how easy we have it with the 2-to-1 requirement, or giving us a guideline should we face an extreme situation that would necessitate 10-to-1 fighting.

I agree with you about accuracy in choosing words. I did not read anything in what An-Nahhaas said that implied that either verse contained a requirement.

I firmly believe that your point 2 is the argument to use to refute the claim of abrogation of 8:65. I clearly see a reassurance in both verses that numbers do not count, not when believers fight for God and the enemy fights for falsehood, not when God has promised He will send angels to fight alongside the believers, as He clearly stated earlier in 8:9.

I do see that 8:66 is general enough to apply to all Muslims, but feel that it was addressed to those at the time of the Prophet (PBUH). I just don't see it as a strong argument against abrogation but equally for it.

I agree with you, and I believe that this is supported by tangible facts in the verse that make the argument, well, less argumentative.

I feel the same way, but (a) I am less sure about who is addressed because the form of address is more general than in 8:65, and (b) as you say, who is addressed in 8:66 is irrelevant to the abrogation claim of 8:65. If it is the early Muslims, there is no abrogation because of the 'dynamic' argument. If it is all Muslims, there is no abrogation because the addressees are different.

Dr. Mostafa Zaid provides an informative analysis of this abrogation claim which he supports (volume 2 of his book, pages 309-315). Here are the highlights:

1. He puts this case in the same category as 58:13 and 73:1-4 in terms of being abrogated using explicit language in the abrogating verse, in this case "Now, God has lightened [the hardship] for you" in 8:66.

2. He asserts that the 10-to-1 obligation was indeed put into practice in the battle of Badr, when Muslims were ordered not to cut and run in the face of a 3-to-1 adversary ratio. (emphasis made for later reference)

3. He asserts that both verses are commands not statements of fact, defending this view by saying that "lightening the hardship" doesn't fit a statement of fact. Makes sense.

4. He further asserts that the second command of 2-to-1 ratio is not contingent on weakness, which would leave the first command of 10-to-1 ratio in place and make the second one an exception. Rather, Muslims are no longer required to face a 10-to-1 adversary ratio, period. I agree that the wording bears this assertion.

5. He also asserts that both commands were requirements on Muslims, not recommendations. His evidence is the wording of a narration of Ibn Abbas. He uses this to argue the abrogation case based on a requirement being lifted, not just a recommendation or a permission which would make the two verses compatible.

6. He disagrees that the view that the two verses being consecutive in the Quran precludes the possibility of abrogation, based on the fact that contiguity in the text doesn't imply vicinity in the time of revelation. He quotes the narration of Ibn Abbas to imply that there was a time break between the two verses.

7. He says that 8:66 requires being steadfast and not cutting and running in front of the enemy. He quotes two other verses that address "cutting and running" in the same chapter (notice that the commands in these verses are unconditional):




8. He goes on to strongly criticise a dissenting view, that of the Thaherey Imam Abu-Muhammad Aly Ibn-Hazm. To start with, Ibn-Hazm objects about the basis for abrogation lacking consensus or statement of abrogation. Zaid doesn't address that objection.

9. This where it gets confusing. Ibn Hazm says that there is no abrogation in these verses because staying put after the fight starts is required regardless of the ratio. I am not sure why this would be an argument against abrogation, except perhaps in reinforcing the statement-of-fact argument? Then Zaid comes back and wonders how people could infer that the verse permits cutting and running against a 3-to-1 ratio, since nothing in the verses talks about cutting and running, and also objects to the notion of fighting an unbounded size of the enemy. I have no idea how this is a response to Ibn-Hazm's argument about abrogation, and how it reconciles with what Zaid himself said in the emphasized parts of points 2 and 6 above. The refutation of Ibn-Hazm's dissent continues in a way that didn't make sense either way to me.

Not so fast 8:65 has a number of words that should not be glossed over. One of those is حرض which means persuade or encourage. It does not mean order or command. Another word or phrase is إن يكن which means "if there may be" which means the 10-to-1 ratio is just an example to illustrate the point that regardless of how overwhelming in number the enemy is, Muslims must not lose courage. A third word is صابرون which means steadfast. This is to explain why the outnumbering is not an issue.


Yes, it is contingent, because God says in 8:66, وعلم أن فيكم ضعفا (and He knew that there is weakness in you), see my post above discussing this clause.


The wording of 8:65 takes precedence over the wording of any Sahaabi. 8:65 says حرض (persuade or urge).


How does that alter or reinforce the abrogation case? 8:66 did not alter the requirement of steadfastness.

I think they are making a distinction between requiring the Muslims to still go to war if they know (before the fact) that the enemy will have a certain ratio, versus not escaping from a battle that has already started if it turns out (after the fact) that the enemy has that ratio. The reason for the distinction is that the two other, unconditional verses in the chapter, 8:15 and 8:45, are concerned only with the after-the-fact situation of escaping an on-going battle. They see that as evidence that 8:65 and 8:66 must be only addressing the situation before the fact, otherwise they would conflict with the other two verses (not that this would be a problem for an abrogationist ). Therefore, they argue the abrogation case under that interpretation. I agree with you that such interpretation doesn't seem to strengthen or weaken the abrogation claim of 8:65 by 8:66.

BTW, I personally think 8:15 and 8:45 are only about being steadfast in battle generally rather than requiring us to still fight an overwhelming adversary ratio, so there is no conflict between them and 8:65-66 whether the specified ratios in 8:65-66 are before or after the fact. My evidence for why I think that is is the verse

Applying our validation process to this case, we find that the case fails the following rules on the list,

0: Neither God nor His messenger have explicitly said that 8:65 was abrogated. What 8:66 says is that God "has now eased it on you." This may be interpreted as abrogation and may not. God has used the words "abrogate" and "replace" elsewhere, so He could have used them here too, but He didn't. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that easing and abrogating are two different concepts.

3: The only command in 8:65 is for the Prophet (PBUH) to persuade Muslims to fight. 8:66 does not relax that command; it relaxes the argument he may use for persuasion.

5: The abrogation claim is not total, because nobody has claimed that the requirement on the prophet (PBUH) to persuade Muslims to fight has been abrogated.

13: The explanation of easing of burden to accommodate weakness is obvious and was quoted by many scholars in their refutation of the abrogation claim in this case. Both 8:65 and 8:66 can be combined in one consistent instruction:

"O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. Let them know that the numbers of the enemy do not matter if they are steadfast as God is with the steadfast. The enemy does not understand this. God has made it clear to you earlier that God and those who followed you of the believers are all you need to be victorious and that God has reassured the believers even more by promising to send angels to fight alongside them."

Professor Muhammad Ali Mustafa refutes this case on the basis of contingency. He writes,

Translation: The view of no abrogation is based on the fact that the new command is contingent upon weakness, thus the old command does not become invalid, but rather becomes valid as soon as weakness goes away and strength comes back.

Interesting angle.