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 Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2010, 04:58 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Dr. Zaid and the Sword Verse

Dr. Mostafa Zaid dedicates an entire section on pages 5-87 in volume 2 of his book to the abrogation claims based on the sword verse. In addition, he handles some other claims under different sections, such as 'statement of facts' if they fit that theme. He refutes all the claims without exception, using strong language in many cases. I will focus here on his general comments about the sword verse with which he started this section.

1. He qualifies that the sword verse is actually 9:5 by the phrase في أصح الاقوال . He disagrees that 9:5 abrogated any verses, and he ridicules the opinion that it abrogated itself.

2. He cites different exegeses about who the polytheists are in 9:5 and when are they to be killed. He discusses the Quranic context of the verse, before and after (including 9:6 which you discussed before, Linguistic). He makes it crisp that these polytheists are specifically those who fought Islam from the beginning and whose treaty with the Prophet (PBUH) was about to expire.

3. Based on that, the refutation of the abrogation claims is basically done. He goes on to defend the freedom of religion mandated by Islam and cites the verses that mandate it. He also addresses the rules of using force in Islam.

4. Of particular note is his handling of what الفتنة means and whoأئمة الكفر are. It provides insight into the thinking of different schools in these matters.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2010, 15:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One verse claimed abrogated by the sword verse is

reported Ibn Al-Jawzi:


باب ذكرالآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة الحج. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "وإن جادلوك فقل الله أعلم بما تعملون". اختلفوا في هذه الآية على قولين: الأولى أنها نزلت قبل الأمر بالقتال ثم نسخت بآية السيف، والثاني أنها نزلت في حق المنافقين، كانت تظهر منهم فلتات ثم يجادلون عليها، فأمر أن يكل أمورهم إلى الله تعالى. فالآية على هذا محكمة


He doesn't refute the claim but reports an interpretation that makes the claim unnecessary. He said the verse means the hypocrites. They sometimes did things and used to argue with the Prophet (PBUH) about them and he is instructed here to delegate their affairs to God.

I'm not sure what that explanation means, but the command in the verse is for the Prophet (PBUH) to make a statement that is always true: God knows better what you do. To abrogate that means to withdraw that statement or to say a different one, which is absurd.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in the footnotes of page 155 of his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, says that he could not find anybody, other than Isb Salaama, who made this claim of abrogation.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 88.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
At-Tabari (implied by his exegesis, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
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: 24 Feb 2010, 16:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports one verse from Chapter 23 has been claimed abrogated by the sword verse. It is,


He writes,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة المؤمنون. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "فذرهم في غمرتهم حتى حين"، أي في عمايتهم وحيرتهم إلى أن تأتيهم ما وعدوا به من العذاب. واختلفوا هل هذه منسوخة أم لا على قولين: الأول أنها منسوخة بآية السيف لأنها اقتضت ترك الكفار على ما هم عليه، والثاني أن معناها الوعيد والتهديد فهي محكمة


Ibn Al-Jawzi used the "threat style" argument here, which he used for several other claims mentioned earlier in this topic, to refute the abrogation claim. While that may be, this claim is false for at least one more reason: 23:54 is clearly timed.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al`Arabi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
At-Tabari (implied, quoted from his exegesis by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 24 Feb 2010, 20:21 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
which is absurd

Pretty much sums it up.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One verse claimed abrogated by the sword verse is


Reports Ibn Al-Jawzi:

ذكر الآية الخامسة: قوله تعالى "فإن تولوا فإنما عليه ما حمل وعليكم ما حملتم". زعم بعضهم أنها منسوخة بآية السيف وليس هذا صحيحا فإن الأمر بقتالهم لا ينافي أن يكون عليه ما حمل وعليهم ما حملوا ومتى لم يقع التنافي بين الناسخ والمنسوخ لم يكن نسخ


He quickly and correctly dismisses the claim on the basis of no conflict. Verse 24:54 states what should be obvious: that upon everyone is their own duty and that's all. That does not conflict with fighting the polytheists. Dr. Mustafa Zayd agrees with him.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 93.

Against:
At-Tabari and Ibn Katheer (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 17:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Two verses, Ibn Al-Jawzi reports, in Chapter 25, were claimed abrogated by the sword verse:

And


He wrote,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة الفرقان. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "أفأنت تكون عليه وكيلا". زعم الكلبي أنها منسوخة بآية السيف. وليس بصحيح لأن المعنى أفأنت تكون حفيظا عليه تحفظه من اتباع هواه فليس للنسخ وجه.

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "وإذا خاطبهم الجاهلون قالوا سلاما". قال الحسن في تفسيرها لا يجهلون على أحد وإن جهل عليهم حملوا. وهذه الآية محكمة عند الجمهور. وقد زعم قوم أن المراد بها أنهم يقولون للكفار ليس بيننا وبينكم غير السلام. وليس المراد السلام الذي هو التحية، وإنما المراد بالسلام التسليم أي تسلما منكم ومتاركة لكم، كما يقول براءة منك أي لا ألتبس بشيء من أمرك، ثم نسخت بآية السيف. وهذا باطل لأن اسم الجاهل يعم المشرك وغيره فإذا خاطبهم مشرك قالوا السداد والصواب في الرد عليه، وحسن المحاورة في الخطاب لا ينافي القتال فلا وجه للنسخ


He quickly dismisses Al-Kalbi's claim that 25:43 is abrogated by the sword verse, because the Prophet (PBUH) was never responsible for those who take their desires as their god. So obvious.

Then he says about 25:63 that the verse does not preclude fighting. Besides, an ignorant person may be a fellow Muslim. All 25:63 says is that when an ignorant person addresses the believers, they are to reply with courtesy and tell the truth. I agree, since it is tempting to reply with emotion and lose temper, hence the word "peace" in the verse.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, pages 545-546, says that the majority agreed that 25:63 was abrogated by the sword verse. They also said that the peace mentioned in the verse is not the greeting of peace, but an absolving (براءة)! He said they found that a necessary interpretation, so much so that even renowned linguist Seebaweh opined likewise and wrote about abrogation of 25:63 even though he never ventured into abrogation elsewhere! He rejected the claim and Muhammad ibn Yazeed debated him on it.

This is really strange. Why is "absolving" a necessary interpretation of the word سلاما in 25:63 when the word clearly means peace? The sword verse did not abrogate anything as we've explained a hundred times already. Therefore, there is no need to fudge up unfounded interpretations of an obvious word in order to prove the verse was not abrogated.

And if scholars had to go out of their way to interpret 25:63 then how come they claimed it was abrogated? It seems to me that if the word سلاما has to mean absolving, then that's an argument against abrogation, not for it. Isn't "absolving" the first word of Chapter 9? What am I missing here?

Who said what:
For:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Muhammad ibn Yazeed (quoted by An-Nahhaas, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
The majority, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Mujaahid (implied by their interpretation cited by At-Tabari, wrote Dr. Zayd),
At-Tabari (implied by his exegesis, says Dr. Zayd),
Seebaweh,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
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: 25 Feb 2010, 18:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
it is tempting to reply with emotion and lose temper, hence the word "peace" in the verse.

Nice.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 18:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Two verses in Chapters 27 and 28 were claimed abrogated by the sword verse, Ibn Al-Jawzi reports. These are:

And


He wrote,

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة النمل. قوله تعالى "فمن اهتدى فإنما يهتدي لنفسه". روى علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أن هذا منسوخ بآية السيف، وكذلك قال قتادة. وقد تكلمنا إلى جنس هذا وبينا أن الصحيح أنه ليس بمنسوخ.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة القصص. قوله تعالى "وإذا سمعوا اللغو أعرضوا عنه وقالوا لنا أعمالنا ولكم أعمالكم سلام عليكم لا نبتغي الجاهلين". اختلف المفسرون في المراد باللغو هاهنا فقال مجاهد في الأذى والسب، وقال الضحاك الشرك، فعلى هذا يمكن ادعاء النسخ. وقوله "لنا أعمالنا ولكم أعمالكم"، قال المفسرون لنا حلمنا ولكم سفهكم، وقال بعضهم لنا ديننا ولكم دينكم، وقوله "سلام عليكم"، قال الزجاج لم يريدوا التحية وإنما أرادوا بيننا وبينكم المتاركة، وهذا قبل أن يؤمر المسلمون بالقتال. وقوله "لا نبتغي الجاهلين" أي لا نطلب مجاورتهم قال الأكثرون فنسخت هذه الآية بآية السيف


Ibn Abbaas and Qataada said 27:92 was abrogated by the sword verse. Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees and says that he explained his argument before.

As for 28:55, scholars differed about what is meant by اللغو. Mujaahid said it meant slander and foul mouthing. Ad-Dhahhaak said it meant polytheism, in which case, there is basis for abrogation, Ibn Al-Jawzi postulates.

I disagree for a simple reason. اللغو simply means all talk that is not fact-based. Verse 28:55 instructs Muslims to pass by people who engage in such talk without joining them or even commenting on it. This has zero to do with the sword verse.

Scholars also disagreed on what every other phrase in 28:55 meant! I don't know why it's so hard to understand. I read it to mean: When Muslims hear talk that we today call "baloney", they are not to honor it with a response and instead say to such talkers, "For us is our work and for you is yours. May peace be between us. We will not engage the ignorant."

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, pages 568-569, says that 28:55 was abrogated by the command of the Prophet (PBUH) not to greet non-Muslims, a weak hadeeth reported by Ibn Hanbal. An-Nahhaas and Makki disagreed as they interpreted "peace" to mean absolving.

Who said what:
27:92:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Qataada,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Abu-Is-haaq (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Aş-Şa`di,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

28:55:
For:
The majority, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Mujaahid, Ad-Dhahhaak (implied),
Az-Zajjaaj,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
Ibn Zayd (according to Shu`la),
An-Nahhaas,
Makki,
Aş-Şa`di,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 19:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
اللغو simply means all talk that is not fact-based.

I have an excellent translation for اللغو. Unfortunately, it is not appropriate. :)

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2010, 18:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Here are a few more verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

And

And

And

And


This is how Ibn Al-Jawzi reports the claims,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "وإنما أنا نذير مبين". زعم بعضهم أنه منسوخة بآية السيف. وهذا لو كان في قوله وما أنا إلا نذير احتمل، فأما هاهنا فلا لأن هذه الآية أثبتت أنه نذير، ويؤيد إحكامها أنها خبر.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الروم. قوله تعالى "فاصبر إن وعد الله حق". زعم السدي أنها نسخت بآية السيف. وهذا إنما يصح له أن لو كان الأمر بالصبر عن قتالهم، فأما إذا احتمل أن يكون صبرا على ما أمر به أو عما نهى عنه لم يتصور نسخ.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة لقمان. قوله تعالى "ومن كفر فلا يحزنك كفره". ذهب بعض المفسرين إلى أن هذا منسوخ بآية السيف، وقال بعضهم نسخ معناها لا لفظها بآية السيف. وهذا ليس بشيء لأنها إنما تضمنت التسلية له عن الحزن وذلك لا ينافي القتال.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة السجدة. قوله تعالى "فأعرض عنهم وانتظر إنهم منتظرون". روى الضحاك عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال: نسختها آية السيف "فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم". أخبرنا إسماعيل بن أحمد قال أبنا عمر بن عيبد الله قال أبنا ابن بشران قال أبنا إسحاق بن أحمد قال أبنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال أبنا عبد الوهاب عن سعيد عن قتادة قال كل شيء في القرآن فأعرض عنهم وانتظر منسوخ نسخته براءة والقتال.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الأحزاب. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "ولا تطع الكافرين والمنافقين ودع أذاهم". قال المفسرون معناه لاتجازهم عليه وتوكل على الله في كفاية شرهم. قالوا ونسخت بآية السيف


He refutes the claim about 29:50 on the basis that is it a statement of fact. It sure is.

He refutes the claim about 30:60, made by As-Suddi, saying that it would be a valid claim if the verse meant "be patient about fighting them", but the verse means to him "be steadfast about what you have been commanded and prohibited." I disagree that the former interpretation constitutes a valid abrogation claim. That's because 30:60 assures the prophet (PBUH) that what God has promised is true and therefore he should remain patient. Neither this statement nor the command to be patient is affected by the call to fight the polytheists, because such fight requires patience too, or else Muslim fighters may quit if hit hard, and the promise of God of either victory or martyrdom remains true as well.

Ibn Al-Jawzi also refutes the claim about 31:23, made by some exegetes, saying that the verse simply comforts the Prophet (PBUH) who always felt bad that some of his people would not believe. That is obvious.

Ibn Al-Jawzi does not refute the claim about 32:30, made by Ibn Abbaas and Qataada. Even if we accept that the sword verse orders the killing of all polytheists, verse 32:30 says "and wait", doesn't it? So, the sword verse, if we accept the twisted meaning attributed to it, is the order waited for! Hence, no abrogation.

Ibn Al-Jawzi does not refute the claim about 33:48 either. Even if we interpret "their harm" as "harming them", it addresses the disbelievers and the hypocrites. That general group contains the polytheists, who are the ones addressed by the sword verse, therefore the sword verse may have specified an exception. It did not abrogate 33:48 which remains valid for other disbelievers and for the hypocrites. As I said many times before, the sword verse does not order the killing of all polytheists; only those of them who have no peace treaty with Muslims and continue to be militant against the Muslims. It does not include polytheists who are not fighting Muslims, nor those who seek refuge with Muslims during a war with them.

Who said what:
29:50:
For:
Ibn Salaama (in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 98).

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

30:60:
For:
As-Suddi,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 98-99.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Aş-Şa`di (leaning),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni.

31:23:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama (according to Al-Khazraji).

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

32:30:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Qataada,
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 99,
Makki (according to Al-Khazraji),
An-Nahhaas, Ibn Al-Jawzi and Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 137.

33:48:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 99,
Aş-Şa`di (implied),
Al-`Ataa'iqi and Ibn Al`Arabi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 163.

Against:
At-Tabari and Ibn Katheer (implied by their exegeses, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Al-Qurtubi (according to Dr. Faaris),
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 Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 14 Oct 2019, 17:57

All times are UTC

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