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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:5, 2:191 or 2:193 abrogate 2:191?
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 05:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 207-211, this verse too was claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

Said An-Nahhaas, Qataada, Ibn Al-Baarizi, Muqaatil, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Salaama. The reason given for the claim is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal who was grabbing the curtains of the Ka`ba.

Al-Ghaali reports that Mujaahid rejected the claim and so did Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Qurtubi, Taawoos, Abu-Haneefa and his fellows, Ash-Shawkaani, Ibn Al`Arabi, Ar-Raazi, Al-Jassaas and Al-Ghaali.

One of the arguments made by the anti-abrogation folk is that some exceptions from the general rule were granted to the Prophet (PBUH). The event of Ibn Khatal was one of those. Al-Bukhaari reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said,

"Verily, this town has been sanctioned by God the Day He created the heavens and the earth. It was never allowed to be violated by anyone before me or after me. I was allowed to break its sanctuary only an hour of a day."

This hadeeth was mentioned by Dr. Mustafa Zayd too as he refuted this claim on pages 99-101 (items 825-827) of his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم. Additional arguments he made are:

  • By breaching their non-aggression treaties with the prophet (PBUH), those polytheists who did have become enemy combatants and fighting them is required by the sword verse, anywhere, even at the Sacrosanct Mosque, per 2:191. So, there is no contradiction that calls for claiming abrogation.

  • 2:191 has a contingency, "until they fight you there." Thus, the only cause to claim its abrogation is if the contingency remains with the abrogating verse. It doesn't, because the sword verse talks about enemy combatants who observe no sanctity.

  • The sword verse is general about place of fighting while 2:191 is specific. The scholars have all agreed that the specificity ruling may precede the generality. Dr. Zayd's main refutation of this claim is on the basis of a generality specified.

  • Some may have thought that the generality of the sword verse implies that fighting the polytheists anywhere, even preemptively is warranted. But, Dr. Zayd asks, "Can a serious charge such as abrogation be based on an interpretation that isn't even the first one that comes to mind?"

  • In his last sermon, the Prophet (PBUH) made the announcement to all Muslims, "Your blood and property are off-limits to each other until you meet your Lord, like this day is sacred, like this month is sacred, like this town is sacred! Hear ye! Did I convey? O God, be my Witness!"

Dr. Zayd also mentioned that Muqaatil claimed that the abrogating is the opening of the verse, "And kill them wherever you find them." I never read anywhere else that in the same text the abrogating sentence comes before the abrogated sentence!

Dr. Zayd also reported that Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas has claimed that the abrogating is

He quickly and correctly dismisses this claim on the basis that 2:191 specifies "where" while 2:193 specifies "why." See more about this particular claim in this topic.

Who said what:
For:
Qataada,
Muqaatil (who said the abrogating is the opening of the verse),
Ar-Rabee` ibn Anas (who said the abrogating is 2:193),
Ad-Dhahhaak (according to Shu`la),
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Shu`la),
Mujaahid, Taawoos,
Abu-Haneefa and his fellows,
Ash-Shawkaani,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Al-Jassaas
Al-Qurtubi,
Ar-Raazi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

Consequences:
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 82-84, rejects this claim and says that accepting it leads to violation of the sanctity of the Sacrosanct Mosque. He also says that God's purpose of prohibiting fighting at the Sacrosanct Mosque, except when attacked, is to limit the places where fighting is permissible. When people have a forbidden place, or a sanctuary, during a fight, they may cool down and may stop or pause the fight.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 17:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 207-211, this verse too was claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

Said An-Nahhaas, Qataada, Ibn Al-Baarizi, Muqaatil, Ibn Hazm and Ibn Salaama. The reason given for the claim is that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal who was grabbing the curtains of the Ka`ba.

Notwithstanding the authenticity issues, it seems to me that either Ibn Khatal was fighting (so people feared for their physical well being if they let him be), in which case that belongs to the explicit exception stated in 2:191, or else he was not fighting, in which case it would have been easy just to arrest him and take him somewhere else to carry out whatever punishment is due. The story as narrated is wanting IMHO.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 18:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi adds this verse.

to the list of verses he believes were abrogated by the sword verse

Al-Ghaali's coverage of this case in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 211-218 is a gem! He refutes it of course. First, he reports that An-Nahhaas stated that the majority have said 2:217 was abrogated by the sword verse, such as Ibn Abbaas, Qataada, Az-Zahri, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib, Sulaymaan ibn Yasaar, Az-Zamakhshari and Al-Qurtubi.

An-Nahhaas brings for evidence of abrogation the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) fought the Hawaazin tribe in the sacred month of Zhul-Qi`da. Al-Ghaali mentions the circumstance of revelation: a mission of the Prophet (PBUH) lead by Abdullah ibn Jahsh killed Ibn Al-Hadhrami the first day of Rajab.

Al-Ghaali starts his refutation argument quite simply: Verse 2:217 clearly states that "religious persecution is a worse sin than fighting in a sacred month." Thus, the verse allows fighting in a sacred month out of necessity!

Al-Ghaali then almost cries as he reflects on the countless wars between Muslims, many of which were in sacred months. He says that if Muslims heeded 2:217, they would not have engaged in so many wars, since the length of sacred months is a third of a year. Muslims would have engaged in a third fewer wars if they complied with God's instructions in 2:217! Al-Ghaali adds that the wisdom of sacred months is to secure the road for pilgrims and to pause wars and cool down, giving negotiation, reconciliation and treaties a chance.

Then Al-Ghaali reports a most interesting point from Imaam Al-Fakhr Ar-Raazi. He noticed a linguistic peculiarity in 2:217, namely, قتال فيه كبير (a fighting in it is a big sin). Ar-Raazi explains that when an indefinite word is repeated, the second mention is not the same as the first mention, but when a definite word is repeated, the repetition refers to the same thing. He gives for an example,

in which the second ease is not the same as the first while the second hardship is the same as the first. By the same token, the second mention of قتال (a fight) in 2:217 is not the same as the first one. Ar-Raazi concludes that the first mention of قتال is general while the second one is specific and refers to cases like those of Ibn Al-Hadhrami, i.e., self defense against religious persecution or sedition. If God wanted to forbid all fighting in a sacred months, regardless of the situation, He would have made the second mention definite, e.g., القتال فيه كبير. I can also see that the very fact the word is indefinite implies that it's not inclusive. That is, it does not talk about all fights, just one kind of fights it labels a big sin. That one kind, judging by the many other verses that explain it, is aggression.

I haven't heard this analysis before: that repeating an indefinite is not repeating the same thing, but rather referring to another thing in the same category. I'd like to check that out further, but for now I'm content taking Ar-Raazi's word for it.

This gets me thinking. The next indefinite words in the verse are صد (shunning), كفر (rejection) and إخراج (evicting). Why are they indefinite? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. I looked up three exegeses and found nothing that reflects on this peculiar style.

Regardless, the following words are definite, الفتنة (religious persecution) and القتل (killing), making it clear that all religious persecution is a bigger sin than any killing in the Sacrosanct Mosque.

Scholars who reject this abrogation claim include: `Ataa', Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Al`Arabi, Ar-Raazi, Rasheed Ridha and Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 28 Jun 2010, 19:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is 2:256

Al-Ghaali, who refutes this claim in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 218-224, reports a most compelling story. `Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, said to an old Christian woman, "O old woman, become a Muslim, for God has sent Muhammad, peace be upon him, with the truth." The woman replied, "I'm an old woman and death is getting near to me." Umar said, "O God, be [my] witness" and he recited "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Al-Ghaali says that Umar did not think that 2:256 was abrogated, so is it right for anyone after that to think otherwise?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 29 Jun 2010, 05:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

was claimed by Ibn Abbaas and Qataada to have been abrogated by the sword verse.

Al-Ghaali covers this claim in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 224-229, and rejects it. He points out a number of opinions of scholars, some of which is strange:

  • An-Nahhaas said that the people of interpretation (أهل التأويل) agree that 4:90 is abrogated by the order to fight. He doesn't say if he too agrees. I find the label أهل التأويل strange, since 3:7 makes it clear that only God has that knowledge.
  • Ibn Abbaas said that 4:90 was abrogated, first by accepting treaties then by the order to "fight the polytheists until they say 'there is no deity but God.'" Mujaahid and Qataada agree and say that Chapter 9 abrogated 4:90.
  • Ibn Al-Baarizi and Ibn Salaama count 4:90 among the abrogated by the sword verse.
  • Ibn Al`Arabi says that the abrogation of 4:90 happened by the abrogation of treaties. I suppose he meant that no new treaties are allowed between Muslims and polytheists.
  • Abu-Muslim Al-Asfahaani said that the exception in 4:90 refers to Muslims and that's why he rejects the abrogation claim. Al-Jabaa'i agrees. Al-Ghaali proves plainly that the exception refers to the disbelievers citing the previous verse,

    Al-Ghaali says that Al-Asfahaani is correct in his conclusion but wrong in his assumption, while the pro-abrogation folk are wrong in their conclusion but right in their assumption about the exception.

Al-Ghaali quotes Muhammad Abduh and Rasheed Ridha and agrees with them. They said that the context here is disbelievers. When Muslims migrated to Medina, the migration was a litmus test for faith. In addition, the Meccans would kill any Muslim they found if he was not protected, so that is why God allowed Muslims in 4:89 to treat disbelievers the same way, with the exception of two categories: disbelievers who join tribes who have treaties with Muslims, or disbelievers who come to Medina not wanting to fight Muslims nor wanting to fight Meccans either.

Isn't that what is obvious from the two verses?

Ar-Raazi also rejected this claim and he quoted

and

as supporting the same principle: you don't fight those who don't fight you.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


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

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 232-236, Al-Ghaali brings attention to the claim that

was abrogated by the sword verse. This claim was made by Qataada, Ikrima and Ibn Hazm. Ibn Abbaas said it was abrogated by the Jizya verse. Ibn Salaama agreed. In another report, Ibn Abbaas said it was abrogated by

Muqaatil agreed. An-Nahhaas also agreed about abrogation.

But Ibn Al`Arabi rejected the abrogation claim, because, he said, there is no conflict between the two verses. He read 47:35 to mean that Muslims should not be weak and seek armistice without a fight, but if the enemy seeks it, Muslims are to accept. Az-Zamakhshari agreed and so did As-Suddi and Ibn Zayd.

Al-Qurtubi also rejected the abrogation claim and he cited the practice of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Sahaaba, such as Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) who negotiated with enemies and stopped the fight.

Mujaahid said that the people referred to in 8:61 are the People of the Book, specifically Banu Qurayzha, and since the Jizya is taken from such folk, there is no cause to claim abrogation.

At-Tabari and Al-Jassaas rejected the abrogation claim. At-Tabari went further to criticize what Qataada said. He said (my translation), "What Qataada said has no basis from the Quran, the Sunna, intuition or reason!" The sword verse, he emphasized, was about the polytheists of Arabia only.

Ibn Katheer also rejects the abrogation claim saying that the practice of the Prophet at Hudaybiya proves otherwise and that Chapter 9 orders the fight when possible. I humbly disagree with both of those arguments but not with the conclusion. First, Hudaybiya took place before Chapter 9 was revealed. Second, there is no indication in Chapter 9 that the fight is whenever possible. Al-Ghaali also sees weakness in Ibn Katheer's arguments, but Rasheed Ridha agreed with Ibn Katheer.

Who said what

For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Qataada, Ikrima,
Al-Hasan, Mujaahid (according to Dr. Zayd),
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi.

Against:
Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (by his practice),
As-Suddi, Ibn Zayd,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Az-Zamakhshari,
Al-Qurtubi,
At-Tabari,
Al-Jassaas,
Ibn Katheer,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 09 Jul 2010, 04:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Another verse claimed to have been abrogated by the sword verse is 2:256.

Ihaab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 191-200, refutes any claim that 2:256 or other verses that teach freedom of religion have been abrogated. One of his arguments is (my translation),

"Verse 2:256 came with its contingency; it explained why there should be no compulsion in religion! It says, 'The right course has become clear from the wrong.' If we concede that 2:256 was abrogated by the sword verse, do we then conclude that now the right course is no longer clear from the wrong course?"

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 10 Jul 2010, 19:07 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
"Verse 2:256 came with its contingency; it explained why there should be no compulsion in religion! It says, 'The right course has become clear from the wrong.' If we concede that 2:256 was abrogated by the sword verse, do we then conclude that now the right course is no longer clear from the wrong course?"

Nice!

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2010, 03:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He mentioned something I've read elsewhere that some scholars called 9:36 the sword verse instead of 9:5. This is noteworthy, since many scholars referred to "the sword verse" without actually quoting it.

Turns out that some scholars believe that the Jizya verse, 9:29, is the sword verse! One such scholar was Abu-Ja`far Al-Khazraji, author of نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, see pages 119-122 of volume 1. He agrees that it abrogated all verses of the Quran that required peaceful co-existence and pardoning and endurance.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 Aug 2010, 03:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Professor Al-Mi`yaar Al-Idreesi, in the footnotes to his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, page 196, quotes As-Suyooti from his book الإتقان في علوم القرآن stating that Ibn Al`Arabi did say in his abrogation book that the sword verse abrogated 124 verses but that it's likely that he was simply reporting what others said. As-Suyooti ridicules his claim that the sword verse abrogated itself as its epilogue "But when they repent, establish prayer and pay alms then let them go" abrogated its beginning. He called such claim "pure ignorance!" (جهل محض)

_________________
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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 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 17 Sep 2019, 16:17

All times are UTC

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