TheMostReadBook.org

Nice!

A fourth verse

In his book, Nada mentions on page 34 that pro-abrogation scholars have used as Quranic evidence of abrogation, in addition to 2:106, 16:101, and 13:39, the verse


The verse is obviously not talking about the Quran, so it is not evidence for the abrogation doctrine.

True, but I'd also debate that it is evidence of abrogation either. The verse clearly states the contingency (العلة) for the new ruling, that the Jews wronged. That means, as the discipline of Usool-ul-Fiqh states, that once the contingency is no more so is the ruling.

Applying this principle to this verse means that if the Jews stop doing wrong, those forbidden foods will be allowed again. The only way for that to happen is for them to accept the Quran and Muhammad, peace be upon him, which they promised Moses they would do.

I am not the only one who views 16:101 as stronger evidence for abrogation than 2:106. On pages 297-298 of his book, Ihab quotes comments by Dr. Muhammad Saleh Aly Mostafa about the Quranic evidence for abrogation saying that 16:101 is direct evidence because of the part that says "God knows better what He reveals" while 2:106 is less indicative even though the term naskh is taken from it.

Dr. Mostafa also says that naskh can apply to verses as well as signs while substitution applies only to verses. This disagrees with some interpretations of 16:101 (by Al-Ghazali for instance) and disagrees with my main objection about interpreting 2:106 as talking about miracles which I discussed in this post.

Al-Ghali is up to a good start in his book which is anti-abrogation. In the introduction on pages 5-13, he discusses his struggle with countering the consensus opinion about abrogation, and cites good quotes by scholars who support criticism of other opinions (similar to Malik's famous quote, but he doesn't mention that one) and discourage blind imitation of what people say.

He seems to be careful and conservative, reiterating his belief in the fundamentals of religion as he counters the established views about abrogation. The book (so far) has the best tone among the anti-abrogation books that I have read. It sets a good example.

He also talks about reciting without following and imitating without understanding as cultural habits of the Muslim nations even outside of religion, which was alluded to in this post in another thread. He mentions how abrogation enabled extremists to justify their approach (the book is relatively recent, written in 2005).

Dr. Az-Zalmi, author of التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, mentioned a charge against Islam that I never heard before, and the charge uses abrogation to support its premise. Using the claim written many times in classic Muslim literature that the Zakah verse, 9:60, has abrogated all charity verses, the charge alleges that the verse was designed to privilege the rich by not requiring them to do any more charity other than the mandatory Zakah.

The charge is insipid of course because the command to spend is ubiquitous in the Quran and spending is the superset of charity which is a superset of Zakah. The Zakah verse abrogated nothing, it only specified the categories of those deserving of charity. It didn't even say how much each category gets, nor that each must get something. In other words, what the verse really did was prohibit giving charity to other than the eight categories it named. But non-charity mandatory spending is still there, such as a man spending on his wife and children, a widow provided for by her late husband's estate, etc. It's only when the people commanded to spend can't afford it, that's when the government may use collected Zakah to fill those needs and Islamic history is filled with examples of the government helping widows and orphans, for instance, from the Zakah treasury when their guardians could not provide for them.

In his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 54, Al-Jabri reports that Abu-Zharr (Al-Ghafaari), may God have been pleased with him, was a staunch advocate for charity that goes beyond the Zakah. One day he and Ka`b Al-Ahbaar were sitting with Calif Uthmaan ibn Affaan, may God have been pleased with him, who asked those present, "What do you say about him who has given alms due on his property, is there any more right in it for others?" Ka`b answered, "No, O Leader of the Faithful." Abu-Zharr pushed Ka`b in his chest and said, "You lie!" And recited,

Then he said, "He mentions the Zakah after He mentioned giving charity to the needy and others, being good to them and alleviating their needs."

IMHO, Abu-Zharr was right, but not for the reason he gave. The goodness verse, 2:177, speaks of benevolent acts, including mandates, while Uthmaan's question was about rights. The reason Abu-Zharr was right is that Muslims are obligated to support their wives, dependents and their kin. Only when a man cannot afford it does the government step in and support those from the collected Zakah.

In the book "Exegesis and Exegetes" by Dr. Muhammad Hussain Al-Thahabi (الذهبي), the history of exegesis among the followers (التابعين) is detailed. There were three schools of exegesis, and the companions of Ibn Masseoud were stationed in Kufa, Iraq. The other two schools were the Mecca school of the companions of Ibn Abbas (including Mujahid Ibn Jabr who is often quoted citing the companions of Ibn Masseoud, if he is the same Mujahid) and the Medina school of exegesis scholars.

The author credits the establishment of the Kufa school to Ibn Masseoud, and provides a short biography of 7 of its members, which include companions of Ibn Masseoud and include Al-Hasan Al-Bassry as well. The names he mentions as prominent are:

• Alqama Ibn Qays Ibn Abdullah Ibn Malik (Al-Nakh'i Al-Kufi). Born during the life of the Prophet (PBUH) and reportedly died ca. 61 H. at the age of 90.
  
  
• (Abu-Aisha) Masrouq Ibn Al-Ajda' Ibn Malik Ibn Umayya (Al-Hamdani Al-Kufi Al-'abed), a.k.a Masrouq ibn Abdul-Rahman, died ca. 63 H.
  
  
• (Abu Abdul-Rahman) Al-Aswad Ibn Yazeed Ibn Qays (Al-Nakh'i), died ca. 74 H.
  
  
• (Abu-Ismaeel) Murra Ibn Sharaheel Al-Hamdani (Al-Kufi), died ca. 76 H.
  
  
• (Abu-Amr) Amer Ibn Sharaheel Al-Shu'abi (Al-Hameeri Al-Kufi), born ca. 20 H., died ca. 109 H.
  
  
• (Abu Al-Khattab) Qutada Ibn Du'ama (Al-Sudusi Al-Akmah). died 117 H. at the age of 56.

The information is in Section 2 of the book.

I found a book dedicated to Mujahid which provides some clues. The book is called "Exegesis of Imam Mujahid Ibn Jabr - died 102 H." by Dr. Muhammad Abdul-Salam Abu-Al-Neel and was published in 1989 by Dar Al-Fikr Al-Islami Al-Hadeetha." On pages 123-124, the author discusses some abrogation claims due to Mujahid, and summarily refutes most of them. He then writes:

From this it is understood that Mujahid, may God have mercy on him, counts specializing the general, detailing the undetailed, restricting an absolute, and emphasizing an issue, counts them as abrogation the same way the scholars of his era did.

This is another point of calibration for the confusion about the meaning of نسخ, in this case at a later stage since Mujahid was born in the year 21 H. and died in 102 H., so he interacted with Ibn Abbas and was still alive when Abu-Haneefa was born. The most important aspect for the issue at hand is that this is evidence that نسخ did not necessarily mean abrogation for the person who is relied upon in citing the exegesis of 2:106 by the companions of Ibn Masseoud as saying نثبت خطها ونبدل حكمها which is the basis for the abrogation doctrine.

I found this information about the exegesis of Ibn Masseoud at an exegesis web site, and I decided to copy it here (I did not verify the information). There is similar information on the site about exegeses of companions of Ibn Masseoud.

I looked up Al-Tabari's exegesis, and on page 71 of Part 17, here is the relevant passage:



This was to substantiate the argument against the abrogation doctrine that is based on: