TheMostReadBook.org

This is very different from the information in this web page (Admin note: protect your computer whenever you visit external web sites),
http://www.freewebs.com/islamicworldnews/nasikhandmansukh.html
which states that Makki's cases are 24 and that 8:65 is not one of them! I'd trust Al-Jabri's information over some web page, but the discrepancy is so big, it's almost as if they are talking about two different people.

Zero Consensus

On page 117 of his book, Al-Jabri discusses the opinions of his contemporary scholars about which verses in the text of the Quran were abrogated. He cites the thesis of Mostafa Zaid, the Master's thesis of Al-Areedh (whom Al-Jabri talks about with reverence), and the Doctoral thesis of Muhammad Mahmoud Farghali. He mentions that the latter two have read and reacted to the first edition of the book (but not Zaid since his thesis was earlier).

The most important statement is that Farghali's approved cases (Al-Jabri did not mention which or how many) and Zaid's approved cases are mutually exclusive. In fact each has specifically refuted the other's cases. Al-Jabri draws comfort from that in saying that this shows that having an anti-abrogation stand does not go against a consensus since none exists, hence it is allowed.

I think we should try to get Farghali's thesis, since the implication of what Al-Jabri says is that Farghali has refuted the "big 3" abrogation claims, since they are among the 5 claims approved by Zaid.

This is certainly irreconcilable. Is it the same Makki? The full name is the same. I noticed in Al-Jabri's book that at one instance he refers to an Ibn Hazm and says "not the Andalusi" so could there be some mistaken identities in some of this?

I have to say that Al-Jabri's statement that I posted earlier to the effect that it was Imam Al-Shafeiy who established the notion of the abrogating and abrogated casts doubt in my mind about the accuracy of what he says at times.

According to this web site, http://www.qurancomplex.org/Display.asp?section=1&l=arb&f=nwasekh004, a brief review of Dr. Farghali's book suggests that no analysis of individual cases was made by the author, but rather a refutation or support of scholars differing opinions. The same site, page 3, confirms that it was Imaam Ash-Shaafi`i who first wrote analysis of the abrogation issues.

BTW, Dr. Farghali is (or was) the dean of the Faculty of Sharia and Law, Al-Azhar University.

Yes, there is an Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri, a different one from Al-Andalusi. The former is actually the better known one and he was squarely against the use of analogy and other techniques as valid deduction methods. I will be quoting his opinions soon insha-Allah in the Deduction Methods forum.

Al-Jabri elaborates on page 122 that there are actually 3 Ibn Hazm's

1. Abu-Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hazm Al-Ansary - died 320 H., wrote the Book "Knowing the Abrogating and the Abrogated" which is mentioned in the margins of the Exegesis of the two Jalals.
   
   
2. Abu-Muhammad Aly Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi - Author of the book Al-Muhalla.
   
   
3. Abu-Bakr Muhammad Ibn Amr Ibn Hazm - Ruler of Medina at the time of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, who was commissioned by Omar together with Ibn Shihab Al-Zuhry to transcribe the Hadeeths of the Prophet (PBUH).

I'll keep in this post a tally of the cases that have been claimed abrogated by the sword verse, 9:5, as I find writings about it. For details, discussion and refutation arguments, please refer to the topic dedicated to this category of claims.

The list:
2:83, 2:109, 2:139, 2:190, 2:191, 2:192, 2:217, 2:256 (subtotal: 8),
3:20, 3:28, 3:159, 3:186 (subtotal: 4),
4:63, 4:80, 4:81, 4:84, 4:88, 4:90, 4:91, 4:92, 4:99, 4:141, 4:145 (subtotal: 11),
5:2, 5:2 (another claim), 5:13, 5:92, 5:99, 5:105 (Subtotal: 6),
6:66, 6:68, 6:70, 6:91, 6:104, 6:106, 6:107, 6:108, 6:112, 6:135, 6:137, 6:158, 6:159 (subtotal: 13),
7:180, 7:183, 7:199 (subtotal: 3),
8:38, 8:61, 8:61 (Another claim) (Subtotal: 3),
9:1, 9:2, 9:5, 9:7, 9:36 (Subtotal: 5),
10:20, 10:41, 10:46, 10:99, 10:102 10:108, 10:109 (subtotal: 7),
11:12, 11:86, 11:121, 11:122 (subtotal: 4),
13:40,
15:3, 15:85, 15:88, 15:89, 15:94 (subtotal: 5),
16:82, 16:106, 16:125, 16:126, 16:127 (subtotal: 5),
17:25, 17:54,
19:39, 19:75, 19:84 (subtotal: 3),
20:130, 20:135,
21:109,
22:49, 22:56, 22:68, 22:69 (subtotal: 4),
23:54, 23:96,
24:54,
25:43, 25:63,
27:92,
28:55,
29:46, 29:50,
30:44, 30:60,
31:23,
32:30,
33:48,
34:25,
35:23,
36:76,
37:174, 37:175, 37:178, 37:179 (subtotal: 4),
38:17, 38:70, 38:88 (Subtotal: 3)
39:3, 39:15, 39:23, 39:36, 39:39, 39:40, 39:41, 39:46 (Subtotal: 8),
40:12, 40:55, 40:77, (Subtotal: 3),
41:34,
42:6, 42:15, 42:39, 42:40, 42:48 (subtotal: 5),
43:41, 43:83, 43:89,
44:59,
45:14,
46:35,
47:4,
48:2, 48:25,
50:39, 50:45,
51:54,
52:31, 52:45, 52:48 (subtotal: 3),
53:29,
54:6,
60:8, 60:9, 60:10, 60:11 (subtotal: 3),
64:14,
68:44, 68:48,
70:5, 70:42,
73:10, 73:11,
74:11,
76:8, 76:24,
86:17,
88:22,
95:8,
109:6.

Total so far: 161 claims affecting 159 verses.

I have edited the OP of this thread to include a list of the abrogation claims that we need to address in the final writeup. Please edit that post to add/delete/reorder.

Those three, which you have dubbed "the big three", Pragmatic, are all categorized by Dr. Az-Zalmi as licenses after resolutions. He writes that in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, page 57. Examples of licenses after resolution are many in the Sharia, e.g., allowing breaking the fast for the sick and the traveler, combining prayers for the traveler, or allowing ablution with dust in the absence of water. The fact that there is a license does not negate the resolution mandate when the condition of the license does not apply.

BTW, Az-Zalmi mentions, on page 54, that Moosa Jawaad Affaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب has refuted all five cases confirmed by Dr. Zaid. We should try to get that book.

If you ask me, this case should be added to "the big three". The reason being, as I discussed in this post in comment on Al-Areedh's sound argument for it, is that 2:187 does include many of the words that imply abrogation, the same words used in the big three.