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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 01 May 2010, 04:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
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.

This is the first report I hear about that has an opinion of Umar ibn Abd-il-Azeez about abrogation.

It is an incredible shame that people want to see 2:190 abrogated.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 May 2010, 04:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi adds this verse to the list of verses he believes were abrogated by the sword verse,

Need I comment?

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi.,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 May 2010, 04:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi adds this verse to the list of verses he believes were abrogated by the sword verse,

The claim was made by Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Al-Musayyib, Qataada and Ad-Dhahhaak, but rejected by `Ataa' and Mujaahid.

I don't know how this claim can possibly be made when the first sentence of the sword verse clearly says "Then when the sacrosanct months have ended..." Granted, some scholars interpreted those months as the final grace period for the polytheists mentioned in 9:2, but it still is an interpretation. The most direct interpretation is the sacrosanct moths, Rajab, Zhul-Qi`da, Zhul-Hijja and Al-Muharram.

Dr. As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, page 71, quotes Al-Qurtubi quoting `Ataa' swearing that 2:217 was not abrogated. His argument was that the subsequent verses are general about time and this one is specific, and the consensus is that the general does not abrogate the specific. He reported that Abuz-Zubayr narrated that Jaabir said that the Prophet, peace be upon him, never fought in a sacrosanct month unless he was attacked and used to pause battle during a sacrosanct month.

Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, pages 49-50, presents an argument for this claim and another against it and implies that he favors the latter. His refutation argument is that 2:117 was specific while the sword verses (he includes 9:36) are not.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ibn Al-Musayyib, Qataada and Ad-Dhahhaak,
Az-Zahri, Sulaymaan ibn Yasaar, Az-Zamakhshari and Al-Qurtubi (according to An-Nahhaas, says Dr. Al-Ghaali).
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
An-Nahhaas (according to Dr. Al-Ghaali).

Against:
`Ataa',
Mujaahid,
Abuz-Zubayr, Jaabir and Al-Qurtubi (implied),
`Ataa', Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Al`Arabi, Ar-Raazi, Rasheed Ridha (according to Dr. Al-Ghaali),
Dr. Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
M. M. Nada,
Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa.

Consequences:
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 85-86, rejects this claim and says that accepting it leads to violation of the sanctity of the sacrosanct months. He also says that God's purpose of setting up four sacred months is to limit the times during which fighting is allowed. When people have periods when fighting is prohibited, they will have to pause the fight and that will cause them to cool down and consider peaceful alternatives. Also, people can feel secure during these times, instead of being on alert all the time.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 May 2010, 03:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن, says that

was abrogated by the sword verse. Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 97-98, refutes it with the same arguments he used to refute that 2:256 was also abrogated by the sword verse.

In his argument refuting this claim and similar ones, Dr. Mustafa Zayd makes the point that the scholars who made those claims misunderstood what sentences like فإنما عليك البلاغ (Upon you is only conveyance [of Our Message]). They thought that fighting abrogates that, while in fact, fighting was added in order to secure that conveyance. The only purpose of fighting is to guarantee the safety of Muslims and their freedom to worship and to call others to Islam, not to force people into Islam. Sentences like "upon you is only conveyance" do not excuse the Prophet (PBUH) from fighting when necessary to secure the community. These sentences only assure him that if the enemies do not accept his call to them to God, he is not blamed; he's done his job by conveying the message to them. Such sentences appear a lot in the Quran, because the Prophet (PBUH) was frequently saddened by the fact that many of his people rejected God's guidance to them. He worried about them a lot and wondered if he could have done more to guide them!

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 120, seems to favor the non-abrogation arguments but he doesn't say it. He equates it to the similar claims about 5:99, 13:40 and 16:82.

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

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi, Muhammad ibn Al-Mutahhar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 27 May 2010, 16:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
One of the rationales often used in the literature to justify this claim is that Muslims were ordered to be peaceful when they were weak and now that they have become strong, they no longer have to and can attack non-Muslims! If this was said by the enemies of Islam, in order to put it down, it would be understandable given their bias, but it was said by Muslim scholars.

In his excellent book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, page 12, Dr. Mustafa Ibrahim Az-Zalmi refutes this justification with a simple logic: It assumes weakness of people whom God is with!

The call for peaceful co-existence is the essence of Islam, not because Muslims had to. The call for battling the polytheists was not because Muslims now are strong and can attack whomever, but because self defense is allowed in Islam. The battle ends, and must end, when the enemy agrees to peaceful co-existence, whether they accept Islam or not.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 28 May 2010, 06:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
The 124th verse claimed abrogated by the sword verse is

So writes Dr. Az-Zalmi in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, page 117. He said that Ibn Salaama said some people he did not name said that. Sounds like he did not agree. Also Ibn Al-Jawzi referred to people saying this but that he disagrees.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 103, does not explicitly reject this claim but argues clearly against it. He says that 2:19 is a statement of fact asserting that everyone is responsible only for one's own actions. Fighting the polytheists does not imply that Muslims will be held responsible for the actions of the polytheists! Shu`la adds that the same assertion is made in these two verses,



Dr. Mustafa Zayd offers a simple refutation: the verse talks about the Jews while the sword verse talks about the polytheists.

Who said what:
For:
Al-Kalbi (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Al-Muhsin ibn Muhammad Al-Bayhaqi better known as Al-Haakim Al-Jashmi (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Salaama (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 05:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Ihab addresses the sword verse on pages 330-332 of his book. He argues along the same line that 9:5 talks about response to an aggression, and a particularly cruel aggression at that. The scope of 9:5 is tied to that.

He then talks about 9:5 as an ultimatum to the polytheist aggressors, since it sets a deadline before they are to be attacked. This may have been mentioned before, but I find it to be a great angle. It is merciful to have very harsh wording in an ultimatum, since that tends to make people abide by it to avoid the consequences. If 9:5 is viewed as the 'stick', 9:4 and 9:6 provides the 'carrots', which makes the combination a well formulated ultimatum:


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 29 May 2010, 21:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In refuting the claim that 3:28 was abrogated, Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 186-187, launches a frustrated attack on Ibn Salaama (I translate):
Dr. Az-Zalmi wrote:
He (Ibn Salaama) said that part of 3:28 that says, "Believers shall not take for allies the unbelievers over the believers" that part is unabrogated. The abrogated part is "Unless you protect yourselves against them" that part was abrogated by the sword verse. Without explaining what contradiction there is between the two verses or explain what the meaning of "except if you protect yourselves against them" means. As if abrogation in the Quran is by opinion subject to what the analyst likes, if he wills he says it's abrogated and if he wills he says it's not. And if he wills he makes part of it abrogated and another not.

This is his method in all the verses he claimed in his book were abrogated. He rarely offered a reason. His book الناسخ والمنسوخ should be burned in the Muslim world because it polluted the status of the Grand Quran, which is the basis of Islamic law, even if he did so with good intention.

Emphasis mine. Wow! I'd add that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi did likewise: called verses abrogated without saying why in most cases. Here is the verse in question for reference,


Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 60-62 (items 779-780) refutes this claim and quotes Ibn Al-Jawzi, from his book نواسخ القرآن, pages 58-59, saying,

وقد زعم إسماعيل السدي أن قوله: "لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين" منسوخة بقوله: "إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة". ومثل هذا ينبغي تنزيه الكتب عن ذكره، فضلا عن رده؛ فإنه قول من لا يفهم ما يقول. اهـ

Translation: Ismail As-Suddi claimed that His words "Believers shall not take disbelievers for allies instead of believers" is abrogated by His words "Except that you protect yourselves in precaution." Such talk, books should be spared mentioning it, let alone refuting it, as it is the talk of someone who does not know what he's saying.

Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 105-107, rejects this claim and says that the same notion of Ibn Salaama (nicknamed Abun-Nasr) was coined by the Khawaarij (Defectors), who regarded Tuqya (prudence), mentioned in 3:28, as a sign of weakness not befitting a believer. Tuqya is a very misunderstood concept! Some Shia justify any lying as Tuqya. Islamophobes quote it (they pronounce it Taqiyya, like the Shia do), as evidence that Muslims cannot be believed because they would tell you what you want to hear.

Tuqya is far from unconditional lying, it is simply a survival mechanism. If admitting that you're a Muslim will get you killed, then you have a license from God to hide your faith to protect yourself. This is the same thing that God mentions in,

To understand Islam, you have to examine the entirety of the Quran (and the authentic Hadeeth), not jump to a conclusion, based usually on interpretation, from a single verse or hadeeth. Islam forbids lying, and the Prophet (PBUH) made that clear when he said, "Stay away from lying. Lying leads to licentiousness and licentiousness leads to Hell." Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas`ood and reported by Muslim as authentic.

Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 120, rejects this claim and the reasoning behind it. He states clearly that the verse refers only to those who are forced to declare disbelief in order to save their lives. It has no other meaning. Shu`la cites 16:106 for support like I did above.

Who said what:
For:
As-Suddi (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Al-Khawaarij (according to Al-Jabri),
Mujaahid,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 03:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Just when I thought that there can't be any more claims of verses abrogated by the sword verse, come two more! Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, page 245, reports that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi claimed that

Was abrogated by the sword verse. Az-Zalmi rejects that for the same reasons we've been repeating here. He also says Ibn Al-Jawzi and Ar-Raazi reject it too.

I don't know how they glossed over the emphasis in 5:99 expressed by the confinement construct (أسلوب القصر): Nothing is upon the Messenger except conveyance.

And he says that

was also included in the ever-growing list of claims.

Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 78-79, accepts this claim and adds that some have said the abrogating verse is


Who said what:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ar-Raazi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la (implied),
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2010, 05:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that verses 17:25 through 17:54 were abrogated by the sword verse! Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 303-306, corrects that obvious error and says that most likely it's a typo and that Al-Andalusi meant to say instead that

And

were abrogated by the sword verse. He says that Ibn Salaama and Ibn Al-Baarizi agree with Al-Andalusi on 17:54. He quotes Ibn Al-Jawzi disagreeing, quoting three different interpretations of 17:54 by Ibn Abbaas, Al-Farraa' and Ibn Al-Anbaari, all implying no abrogation.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (implied),
Al-Farraa' (implied),
Ibn Al-Anbaari (implied).

_________________
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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 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 19 Oct 2019, 07:42

All times are UTC

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