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 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 06:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

And

He writes,

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة سأل سائل. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "فاصبر صبرا جميلا". قال المفسرون صبرا لا جزع فيه وزعم قوم منهم ابن زيد أن هذا كان قبل الأمر بالقتال ثم نسخ بآية السيف، وقد تكلمنا على نظائر هذا.

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا حتى يلاقوا يومهم الذي يوعدون". زعم بعض المفسرين أنها منسوخة بآية السيف، وإذا قلنا أنه وعيد بلقاء القيامة فلا وجه للنسخ

Again, he cites similar arguments of his he presented before to refute these claims.

Who said what:
70:5:
For:
Ibn Zayd,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Unnamed by Makki, Ibn Al`Arabi and An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

70:42:
For:
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 129,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
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: 09 Mar 2010, 06:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that these two verses from Chapter 73 were claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

He writes,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "واصبر على ما يقولون واهجرهم هجرا جميلا". قال المفسرون واصبر على ما يقولون من تكذيبهم إياك وآذاهم لك، "واهجرهم هجرا جميلا" لا جزع فيه، وهذه منسوخة عندهم بآية السيف وهو مذهب قتادة، وعلى ما بينا من تفسيرها يمكن أن تكون محكمة.

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "وذرني والمكذبين أولي النعمة ومهلهم قليلا". زعم بعض المفسرين أنها منسوخة بآية السيف، وليس بصحيح لأن قوله ذرني وعيد وأمره بإمهالهم ليس على الإطلاق بل أمره بإمهالهم إلى حين يؤمر بقتالهم فذهب زمان الإمهال فأين وجه النسخ

He rejects both claims citing previous arguments for similar cases.

Who said what:
73:10:
For:
Qataada,
An-Nahhaas (implied by Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

73:11:
For:
Ibn Salaama (according to Dr. Al-Husayni, but Ibn Salaama does not actually mention 73:11 as abrogated, only 73:10. See his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 130),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
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: 09 Mar 2010, 06:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

was claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He writes,

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة المدثر. قوله تعالى "ذرني ومن خلقت وحيدا". هذه نزلت في الوليد بن المغيرة، والمعنى خل بيني وبينه فإني أتولى هلاكه. وقد زعم بعضهم أنها نسخت بآية السيف. وهذا باطل من وجهين: الأول أنه إذا ثبت أنه وعيد فلا وجه للنسخ، وقد تكلمنا على نظائرها فيما سبق. الثاني أن هذه السورة مكية وآية السيف مدنية والوليد هلك بمكة قبل نزول آية السيف

He correctly refutes this claim using two arguments:
  1. It's a threat, meaning "Let Me take care of his demise.",
  2. This verse was revealed about Al-Waleed ibn Al-Mugheera, and he did die in Mecca long before the sword verse was revealed.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni).

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 138,
An-Nahhaas and Makki, according to Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris,
Muhammad ibn Al-Mutahhar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Aş-Şa`di,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 21:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that the following two verses in Chapter 76 were claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

And

He writes,

باب ذكر ما أدعي عليه النسخ في سورة هل أتى. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "ويطعمون الطعام على حبه مسكينا ويتيما وأسيرا". زعم بعضهم أن هذه تضمنت المدح على إطعام الأسير المشرك قال وهذا منسوخ بآية السيف. أخبرنا المبارك بن علي قال أبنا أحمد بن الحسين قال أبنا البرمكي قال أبنا محمد بن إسماعيل قال أبنا أبو بكر بن أبي داود قال أبنا يعقوب بن سفيان قال بنا يحيى بن بكير قال حدثني ابن لهيعة عن عطاء عن سعيد بن جبير وأسيرا قال يعني من المشركين نسخ السيف الأسير من المشركين.
قلت إنما أشار إلى أن الأسير يقتل ولا يفادى فأما إطعامه ففيه ثواب بالإجماع لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام في كل كبد حرى أجر والآية محمولة على التطوع بالإطعام فأما الفرض فلا يجوز صرفه إلى الكفار.

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "فاصبر لحكم ربك" زعم بعضهم أنها منسوخة بآية السيف، وقد تكلمنا على نظائرها وبينا عدم النسخ

He correctly refutes both claims. For 76:8 he points out it's a praise for a good deed and that the sword verse does not annul the duty to feed a prisoner of war; it only says that he cannot be ransomed. I respectfully disagree that he cannot be ransomed, since the verse mentions no prohibition of a ransom, and we know that 47:4 allows ransom.

And as for 76:24, he refers to prior arguments he made refuting similar cases.

Who said what:
For:
Sa`eed ibn Jabeer,
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 132.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Aş-Şa`di (who said that Chapter 76 contains no abrogated or abrogating verses),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 09 Mar 2010, 21:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
The last verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi are:

And

And

And

Here is what he writes and with it he finishes his book نواسخ القرآن,

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الطارق. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "فمهل الكافرين أمهلهم رويدا". زعم بعضهم أنه منسوخ بآية السيف. وإذا قلنا أنه وعيد فلا نسخ.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الغاشية. قوله تعالى "لست عليهم بمصيطر". أخبرنا محمد بن ناصر قال أبنا علي بن أيوب قال أبنا ابن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال بنا أبو داود قال بنا أحمد بن محمد قال حدثت عن معاوية ابن صالح عن علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه "لست عليهم بمصيطر" قال نسخ ذلك فقال "فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم".
قلت وقد قال بعض المفسرين في معناها لست عليهم بمسلط فتكرههم على الإيمان فعلى هذا لا نسخ.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة التين. قوله تعالى "أليس الله بأحكم الحاكمين". زعم بعضهم أنه نسخ معناها بآية السيف لأنه ظن أن معناها دعهم وخل عنهم، وليس الأمر كما ظن فلا وجه للنسخ.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الكافرين. قوله تعالى "لكم دينكم ولي دين". قال كثير من المفسرين هو منسوخ بآية السيف. وإنما يصح هذا إذا كان المعنى قد أقررتم على دينكم، وإذا لم يكن هذا مفهوم الآية بعد النسخ. آخر الكتاب والحمد لله وحده وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد النبي وآله وصحبه وسلم تسليما كثيرا.
اهـ


Al-Ghaali points out, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 247-248, that 95:8 was claimed abrogated by the sword verse by Ibn Salaama, and all other scholars disagreed, even people who backed up many other abrogation claims, such as Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan. Ibn Al`Arabi wondered how can a rhetorical question be abrogated! Az-Zamakhshari said it implies a threat from God to the disbelievers. Ibn Al-Jawzi also rejected the abrogation claim of 95:8.

Muqaatil mentioned in his exegesis that whenever the Prophet (PBUH) recited 95:8, he always said afterward بلى، وأنا على ذلك من الشاهدين ("Indeed, and I am to that is one of the witnesses"). Thus, the Prophet (PBUH), by his practice, did not agree that 95:8 was abrogated!

As for 86:17, doesn't the verse end with the word رويدا (a little bit)? It's timed, so how can it be abrogated?

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la ends his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 185, with the claim of abrogation of 109:6, which he rejects. He says that scholars whom he did not name, have said that the meaning of this verse is not like many exegetes understood, namely that it requires not fighting the disbelievers and approving their religion for them, but rather that to each his own; that the guidance of one will not benefit the unguided and the error of one will not harm the guided.

While that is true, with all due respect, that is not what the verse says either. The verse very simply states that each chooses his religion freely; no one can be forced into any religion he or she does not freely choose. The sword verse does not allow forced conversions nor killing anybody who does not accept Islam. It only requires fighting militant polytheists who would not peacefully co-exist with Muslims.

Verse 109:6 defines Al-Baraa', an Islamic principle. It means that a Muslim must clearly state that he or she does not share with others beliefs they may have that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna. That does not mean they despise others or their beliefs as some Muslims think. It only means that this delineation needs to be made clear.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (88:22, per Ibn Al-Jawzi and Ibn Salaam),
Ibn Zayd (88:22, he said it is also abrogated by 5:73),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
An-Nahhaas and Al-`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (86:17, per Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Salaama (86:17, per Al-Khazraji and 95:8 per Al-Ghaali. Confirmed in Ibn Salaama's book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 134 and 138. Ibn Salaama is also for the claim about 109:6 on page 43),
Al-Khazraji,
Al-Qurtubi (according to Dr. Faaris).

Against:
Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Abu-Hurayra (95:8, implied),
Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan (95:8),
Ibn Al`Arabi (95:8),
Az-Zamakhshari (95:8),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
An-Nahhaas (109:6, quoted by Dr. Faaris),
Ibn Katheer (according to Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd (86:17, 88:22, 95:8, 109:6),
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2010, 05:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic, you are a patient person. I pretty much gave up on the arguments of abrogation by the sword verse.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2010, 20:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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!.

Well, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi claims in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم that 2:190 was abrogated. He wrote that the abrogating verse is

Even though the verse clearly says كما يقاتلونكم (as they fight you) which means that the enemy started the fight and Muslims therefore have to defend themselves. I am puzzled by how a simple observation like this escaped him.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2010, 04:11 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that the two verses,

And

Were both abrogated by the sword verse.

What could possibly be abrogated here by the sword verse? Verse 4:84 urges Muslims to fight. Isn't fighting also the subject of the sword verse? No comment at all from Ibn Hazm.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 17 Apr 2010, 04:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that

Was abrogated by the sword verse. Ibn Zayd claimed the clause "And let not the hatred of a people..." was the abrogated part.

Mujaahid, on the other hand, rejected the claim and said the verse came for a specific event. Makki said that the majority opinion is that it is not abrogated. Al-Khazraji liked that.

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa's refutation of this claim is that 5:2 is specific while the sword verses (he includes 9:36) are general. He says that on page 40 of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهوهمه وتاريخه ودعاواه.

See also this related topic: Did 9:5, 9:17 or 9:28 abrogate parts or all of 5:2?

Who said what:
For:
Ash-Sha`bi (in one report), Qataada,
Mujaahid (in one report), As-Suddi, Ibn Zayd,
Ad-Dhahhaak (according to At-Tabari),
At-Tabari,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas,
Mujaahid (in another report),
`Aa'isha, Ash-Sha`bi (`Amir ibn Shuraaheel, in another report), `Amr ibn Shurahbeel and Al-Hasan (implied by a report that Chapter 5 was the last revealed and nothing abrogated it),
The majority, according to Makki,
Makki (implied),
Ar-Raazi,
Al-Khazraji,
Az-Zurqaani,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Ali Hasan Al-`Areedh,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 04:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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!.

I was right! Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi said 2:190 was abrogated by the sword verse, said Al-Qurtubi, who also said that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Umar ibn Abd-il-Azeez all said it was not. Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, page 66, also says that there are reports that Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows also disagree that 2:190 was abrogated.

Husaam Al-Ghaali covers this case in good detail in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 199-207. He added many names to the list of people who spoke about this abrogation claim.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 143-147 (items 889-895), discusses and rejects this claim on the basis of no contradiction. He adds that the cause for the claim is one interpretation and that makes it uncertain and nothing in the Quran can be abrogated without certainty. He says that other, stronger interpretations have been offered which show that there is no contradiction between this verse and others claimed to abrogate it. I'd add that no claim of abrogation can be based on an interpretation. Period!

Dr. Zayd quotes a narration from Ibn Abbaas that is a key to understanding the fighting verses,
عن علي بن أبي طلحة الهاشمي عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه، أنه فسر الأمر بالقتال والنهي عن الاعتداء فقال: لا تقتلوا النساء ولا الصبيان ولا الشيخ الكبير ولا من ألقى إليكم السلم وكف يده، فإن فعلتم هذا فقد اعتديتم

Translation: Ibn Abbaas interpreted the command to fight and the prohibition of transgression as follows. Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or anyone who seeks peace with you and hold back his hand (i.e., does not fight). If you do, then you have transgressed.

That says it all, doesn't it?

Dr. Zayd then proceeds to show that the claim that 2:190 was abrogated by 9:36 is also bogus, because 9:36 clearly says "as they fight you." He says the sword verse orders the fighting of those polytheists who breached their treaty. That's an act of aggression that makes them enemy combatants and legitimizes fighting them. Finally, he said that some have claimed that

abrogated 2:190. He dismisses that claim since obviously the verse says the same thing again: when you are fought, fight back!

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 109, rejects the claim about 2:190 and quotes the above narration of Ibn Abbaas which he describes as "sound and obvious!" He also offers his own refutation. A linguistic one! He says that the verbal pattern of قاتلوا is the mutual pattern, meaning that it takes two sides. Thus, he argues, it only applies if one party has already engaged in a fight. Thus, the word means to fight back. This also means that the phrase الذين يقاتلونكم (those who fight you) is an emphasis meant to eliminate any misunderstanding. How sad that the misunderstanding did however happen and went on for centuries.

I'd add that the verbal pattern of لا تعتدوا (do not transgress) is one-sided. Thus it means "do not start a fight." More emphasis. More clarification of the obvious.

Who said what:
For:
Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zayd ibn Aslam (in one report),
Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi,
As-Suyooti.

Against:
The majority, according to Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Umar ibn `Abdil`Azzez, who all said the prohibition in 2:190 is against killing women and children. Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas agreed,
Taawoos (according to Dr. Faaris, quoting makki and An-Nahhaas),
Al-Hasan Al-Basri, who added to the opinion above excessive violence, killing the elderly, monks, burning trees and killing animals unnecessarily,
Abul-`Aaliya, Sa`eed ibn Jabeer, Abu-Ali Al-Jabaa'i and Ibn Zayd (according to Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni),
Muqaatil, who said it applies to fighting in a sacred month,
Ibn Qateeba, who said that it applies to all who live peacefully or have a treaty,
Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows (according to Dr. As-Saqqa),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Rasheed Ridha, who explained that the circumstance of revelation was that Muslims, on their way to Umra after the treaty of Hudaybiya, were unsure if they are allowed to repel aggression from Mecca during the sacred month,
Imaam Abu-Zahra, who said that 2:190 is the Islamic constitution for fighting. He added that 2:190 contains declarative statements that cannot be abrogated, such as "God does not like aggression". If it's abrogated then it is implied that God now approves injustice, God forbid,
Ibn Taymiya, who said that 2:190 is the evidence that preemptive wars are forbidden in Islam and that war is only for self defense. He added that

specifies the contingency and the objective of war. The contingency is to prevent persecution in religion and the war ends when that purpose is achieved one way or another.
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Al-Ghazaali. He said, in his book تراثنا الفكري في ميزان الشرع والعقل, pages 53-56, that those who claim that Islam is to spread by the sword only understand the logic of criminal gangs,
Husaam Al-Ghaali who said that the command to fight the polytheists is to counter their fighting, not because of their disbelief. He gives for evidence the story of Asmaa' bint Abi-Bakr when her polytheist mother came to visit her and brought her a gift. Asmaa' wouldn't take the gift until she asked the Prophet (PBUH) who told her to accept the gift and be hospitable and kind to her mother.

_________________
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 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 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 Oct 2019, 08:32

All times are UTC

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