|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10 Posts: 4558 Location: USA
|
Jamaal `Ataaya devotes a large portion of his book, حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 275-324, to the analysis of 2:106, and does a good job. He argues that the central issue behind the revelation of 2:106 (and 16:101) is the event of the Qibla change-over. Because of that, he devotes the next pages 325-363 to analyzing this event and he does an excellent job at it. Following are what I consider the best points he makes in this regard: - The word Aaya آية means sign, mark, clue, wonder. It is something that causes one to pause and ponder, find guidance, make a conclusion. That is why verses of the Quran, as well prior scriptures, are called آيات, because they stir up in their reader or hearer a reflection and an understanding of God and His message.
- An Aaya, is always something that is visible and plain for anyone who wishes to take notice of. Those who do, it crosses them from watching to understanding. That is why an Aaya is called عبرة (lesson learned), a word that literally means a cross-over.
- The singular form of the word Aaya was never mentioned in the Quran to mean a verse. Always a sign. The plural, Aayaat, however, is mentioned in the Quran to mean signs or verses. For that reason, the mention of Aaya in 2:106 refers to a sign, not a verse.
- In order to bring a sign into being, one needs three qualifications: knowledge, wisdom and power. Without knowledge, no wisdom can be had and without power no sign can be brought into being even by the wise. Abrogation implies a lack of all three qualifications!
- Verses containing rulings tend to end with the words "And God is Knowledgeable and Wise." The Arabic word for wise, حكيم, also means one who sets things correctly once and for all. In fact, the word all abrogation scholars have used in the literature to describe a verse or ruling that is not abrogated is محكم, which is derived from the same root of wisdom and fixing things in place correctly.
If naskh means abrogation of ruling, the verse would have been ended with "Did you not know that God is Knowledgeable and Wise?" instead of "Did you not know that God is over everything Powerful?"
- These two verses,
And
Make it clear that God's words do not change and should not. One might immediately ponder: why then was the Torah changed, for instance. `Ataaya answers this question later, but he really should have answered it right away. The answer of course is that people did that, not God. Verse 50:29 clearly states that God would never change His words, but 6:115 does not explicitly say that, therefore it must be understood in the same light as 50:29.
- If naskh means annulment (إبطال), we know from studying the Quran that God only annuls falsehood. Neither a sign from God, nor a verse from Him, can be described as falsehood. Thus, `Ataaya concludes, the semantic "to annul" does not apply to naskh as mentioned in 2:106, regardless of whether you take Aaya to mean sign or verse.
- `Ataaya draws attention to the fact that Ibn Abbaas did not interpret the verse as replacement of a ruling, but of a verse. The notion of ruling being separate from verse is something that the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood invented and At-Tabari adopted and the rest followed.
- Verse 2:106 talks about causing a sign to be "forgotten." This is the evidence abrogation scholars used to conclude that some revealed verses were abrogated in recitation. They back up that claim by citing two more verses,
And
These two verses only present a possibility, not an event that has or will happen, much like 2:106 states a possibility of abrogation. In other words, all three verses assert God's will and power, not something that He did or will do.
- The interpretation of Ibn Abbaas of 2:106 is that ننسخ means "We replace" and ننسها means "We leave it in place." `Ataaya agrees with him. I respectfully disagree with the second, because 2:106 states two followups to naskh: a better sign or a similar sign, not the same sign. Thus, the interpretation "leave it in place" does not apply.
The other reason why this interpretation is invalid is that the verb ننسها is in the imposition format, that is "We make them do it", not in the regular format "We do it." Thus, it cannot possibly mean "We leave it", but "We cause it to be left." The only way out of this dilemma is to recognize that Ibn Abbaas read the word ننسأها (We put it off), not نُنْسِها (We cause it to be forgotten). Thus, his interpretation is consistent with his reading of the word, but that reading is not the established reading.
Of particular interest is the fact that the noun from both verbs (both readings) is the same, إنساء. That shows that the two verbs are semantically highly related.
One evidence `Ataaya cites to prove that "forget" is not literal but rather means "leave" is
Tha`laba explained the part that says "they forgot God so He forgot them" by saying that God does not forget; it's a figure of speech which means "they left out God's commands so He left them out of His mercy."
Another evidence `Ataaya quotes is
Which make it clear that "forget" here means the worshiper neglects God's signs and God leaves him out of His Grace.
A third evidence he quotes is
Which does not talk about involuntary forgetfulness, but about not taking the command to heart.
- `Ataaya asks the logical question: If verses were abrogated in recitation, what were their purpose? Was that purpose achieved? Narrations that claim such abrogation occurred, besides being all weak, do not answer those two questions! I'd ask: Why would God reveal a verse that has no purpose? God does not do anything without purpose. Did those verses fail to achieve their purpose, and that's why God abrogated them? Sanctified is God above this nonsense. Those narrators describe a god who sometimes acts in haste and without forethought only to regret his decision later and go to a lot of trouble, by causing verses to be forgotten by the hundreds of people who memorized them, in order to undo the damage! God forbid!
- God calls the Quran Azh-Zikr (the Remembrance) in many verses, so how can parts of such a Book be forgotten or caused to be forgotten?
- How can God order His Messenger (PBUH) to "Remind. You are but a reminder" (88:21-22), then cause him and others to forget?!
- If the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood are right, and what is abrogated is the ruling, then how does that square with "We bring a better or similar..."? What is the wisdom of abrogating a ruling then bringing another one just like it?
- The context of 2:106, especially
Clearly is about signs or miracles, since what the Jews kept asking Moses for, peace be upon him, were miracles and they even asked him to show them God. They were not urging Moses to bring them more verses of the Torah Same point was brought up by Imaam Muhammad Abduh, quoted by his student M. Rasheed Ridha in his exegesis, Al-Manaar, volume 1, page 344, as well as Sheikh Al-Ghazaali in his book كيف نتعامل مع القرآن, page 83.
- Because `Ataaya is convinced that نُنْسِها means "We leave it unchanged", he sees 2:106 as identical to
- `Ataaya shows that the circumstances of revelation of 16:101 was the accusation by the polytheists of Muhammad (PBUH) that he changes his rulings. Al-Khaazin, in his exegesis, points out that there was no legislation in Mecca, only theology, and since 16:101 was revealed in Mecca, it cannot possibly be referring to any ruling that was abrogated.
`Ataaya concludes that the event that caused this criticism is the Qibla change-over. But that would contradict the assertion that 16:101 was revealed in Mecca, since the Qibla change-over was in Medina.
- Only God may abrogate His signs, verses or rulings, if He wills. Not people. Scholars cannot guess that He did if He did not say that He did.
In subsequent posts, I'll summarize `Ataaya's best arguments regrading the Qibla change-over event and his concluding chapter about understanding the significance of generalities in the Quran.
_________________ A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.
|
|