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  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2010, 20:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
و أما أدلة هذا القول الشاذ

:D

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 09:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Item 320 on page 220: The author quotes the exegesis of Al-Tubary as citing narrations of Ibn Abbas and narrations of the companions of Abdullah Ibn-Massoud, which interpret abrogating a verse as maintaining its writing and changing its ruling. In footnote 373 on the same page, the author supports the authenticity of the narrations of the companions of Ibn-Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود), but refutes the authenticity of the narrations of Ibn-Abbas as disconnected (مقطوع).

On page 92 of this book, the author provides similar information about this mode of abrogation. He mentions that narrations of exegesis from Hasan (I am not sure who), Ibn-Abbas, and Ibn-Massoud were used to reinforce acquiescence in the view that the text of the Quran included 'inoperative' verses. He discusses the contrast between a verse and its ruling, which is the rationale for this mode of abrogation, in detail in the next several pages. On page 96, he 'credits' the originalists with the creation of the notion of abrogation of a ruling but not its verse. He then theorizes, rather elaborately, that the notion was necessary for those who held that nothing can be better than a verse in the Quran, not even another verse much less a hadith, but rulings within different verses and hadiths can be legitimately considered better than other rulings.

Disclaimer: These information and analysis come from a Non-Muslim writer, and should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2010, 05:30 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked up the linguistic meaning of the verb "بطل" which is the origin of "الباطل" that appears in 41:42, and according to one of the dictionaries (مقاييس اللغة), it means:

الباء والطاء واللام أصلٌ واحد، وهو ذَهاب الشيء وقِلَّة مُكثه ولُبْثه

Translation: Something being gone, and lack of its staying or remaining

On page 204, Burton mentions that Al-Tabari, in his interpretation of


was emphatic that نسخ means أبطل (the very specific word).

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 04:20 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Anti-Abrogation Edict

On the next-to-last page of Zaid's book, page 337 of volume 2 under the heading "Conclusion of the Book", Zaid refers to a significant event:

Quote:
The High Council for Islamic Affairs (المجلس الاعلى للشئون الإسلامية) decided in its exegesis that there is no abrogating or abrogated in the Quran.

Zaid recommends that they reconsider that decision in view of his findings, but the important thing for us is to locate that decision and its justification. I am surprised that this is not more well known. BTW, I don't see why there shouldn't be abrogating in the Quran, but that's a separate issue.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 04:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
On the next-to-last page of Zaid's book, page 337 of volume 2 under the heading "Conclusion of the Book", Zaid refers to a significant event:
Quote:
The High Council for Islamic Affairs (المجلس الاعلى للشئون الإسلامية) decided in its exegesis that there is no abrogating or abrogated in the Quran.

Zaid recommends that they reconsider that decision in view of his findings, but the important thing for us is to locate that decision and its justification. I am surprised that this is not more well known.

He must be mistaken, or the council changed its mind. Here is what the council said in its official web site before I couldn't locate anymore:

نحن لا ننكر أن فى القرآن نسخاً، فالنسخ موجود فى القرآن بين ندرة من الآيات، وبعض العلماء المسلمين يحصرها فيما يقل عن أصابع اليد الواحدة، وبعضهم ينفى نفياً قاطعاً ورود النسخ فى القرآن (3)؛

أما جمهور الفقهاء، وعلماء الأصول فيقرونه بلا حرج، وقد خصصوا للنسخ فصولاً مسهبة فى مؤلفاتهم فى أصول الفقه، قل من لم يذكره منهم قدماء ومُحْدَثين. والذى ننكره كذلك أن يكون وجود النسخ فى القرآن عيباً أو قدحاً فى كونه كتاباً منزلاً من عند الله. ذلك ظن الذين كفروا، فويل للذين كفروا من النار


The (3) reference in the above quote is detailed as follows,
منهم الدكتور عبد المتعال الجبرى وله فيه مؤلف خاص نشرته مكتبة وهبة بالقاهرة، والدكتور محمد البهى ومنهم الشيخ محمد الغزالى

which tells us two important pieces of information:
  1. Confirms that Dr. Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri rejected the abrogation doctrine. His book is published by the Wahba Bookstore in Cairo, Egypt.
  2. That Dr. M. Al-Bahiyy (d. 1982), former Egyptian minister of Awqaaf (Charitable Trusts) and Sheikh M. Al-Ghazaali also rejected the abrogation doctrine.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2010, 05:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He must be mistaken, or the council changed its mind. Here is what the council said,

Great information! Thank you.

They may well have changed their mind (under pressure?). The phrasing "نحن لا ننكر أن فى القرآن نسخاً" suggests that, as it is a bit defensive.

We should try to get Al-Jabri's book. I think once we get a credible anti-abrogation book, it will open the doors to arguments and references that are less likely to be included in the pro-abrogation books.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2010, 16:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1825
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Al-Tabari, in his interpretation of 22:52 was emphatic that نسخ means أبطل (the very specific word).

The context of 22:52 needs to be looked at,


In particular, 22:53 may suggest that what has been 'abrogated' of Satan's input may still have an effect on some, so it's not completely gone? Maybe the effect happened before the abrogation took place? I just thought we should look into this since 22:52 is the only other verse in the Quran where the the word for abrogation is used.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2010, 20:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
The context of 22:52 needs to be looked at,
...
In particular, 22:53 may suggest that what has been 'abrogated' of Satan's input may still have an effect on some, so it's not completely gone? Maybe the effect happened before the abrogation took place?

I don't think this can be concluded, because God says in 22:52 that after He removes Satan's input, He fixes His verses. Thus, Satan's confusion lasted only the time the verse was being revealed and its effect reached only those who heard it then. Those of them with shaky faith or who are hypocrites believed Satan's input but those who have knowledge and faith quickly learned the correct words and were protected from Satan's manipulation. The verses have been fixed ever since.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Origins of the abrogation doctrine
PostPosted: 02 Mar 2010, 20:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
وقال عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه أبي أعلمنا بالمنسوخ

Translation: Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, said, "Ubayy (ibn Ka`b) is the most knowledgeable among us of the abrogated."

My comment is: How come we don't have what Ubayy said about it? May God have been pleased with him. Why wasn't it documented? Why didn't the abrogationists quote him? I don't recall seeing his name in any of the literature naming even one abrogation claim! The other question to ask is: How did he know it? Did the prophet (PBUH) tell him?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why keep abrogated verses?
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2010, 21:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
From all of this, it seems that the interpretation of 2:106 by the companions of Ibn Massoud (أصحاب ابن مسعود) is the original basis for the belief that there are abrogated verses in the text of the Quran.

I came across this quote in Fiqh-us-Sunna in the context of whether one should raise one's hands after rising from a bowing (Rukoo`) in the prayer. Ibn Mas`ood said no.

قال الزيلعي في نصب الراية، نقلا عن صاحب التنقيح: ليس في نسيان ابن مسعود لذلك مايستغرب، فقد نسي ابن مسعود مالم يختلف فيه المسلمون بعد، وهما المعوذتان، ونسي مااتفق العلماء على نسخه، كالتطبيق، ونسي كيف قيام الاثنين خلف الإمام، ونسي مالايختلف العلماء فيه، أن النبي :pbuh: صلى الصبح يوم النحر في وقتها، ونسي كيفية جمع النبي :pbuh: بعرفة، ونسي مالم يختلف العلماء فيه من وضع المرفق والساعد على الأرض في السجود، ونسي كيف يقرأ النبي :pbuh: "وما خلق الذكر والأنثى" ـ

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  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 16 Dec 2017, 18:53

All times are UTC

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