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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 17:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I looked at this some more, and that theme runs from 2:104 to 2:112.

Indeed, and it is crucial to read the entire theme to get the teaching, not just one verse and then jump from it to a conclusion, like what happened with the so-called sword verse.

Thanks for noticing that 2:104 is part of the theme. It talks about the word راعنا which, in Arabic, means "pay attention to us" or "take care of us", but in Hebrew means "flippant" or "lightheaded", similar to the Arabic word راعن. The Jews took advantage of the fact that the words sound similar to make fun of the Prophet, peace be upon him. This sort of behavior they have done often, first in their own scripture,

And now when listening or speaking to the Prophet (PBUH),


I'd add that they also took advantage of the fact that the word naskh has multiple meanings, one of which is abrogation, to levy their charge against the Quran that abrogation is tantamount to change of mind after new information becomes available.

Did you notice how 2:109 exposes the real wishes of the Jews at the time and their wishful thinking is exposed in 2:111, while the reality is stated clearly in 2:112?

The parallel between this episode and the story of the half-brothers of Joseph (PBUH) is striking! In both events, a group of people who began to think they are privileged envied the "new comer" for getting the privilege instead, wished to kill him and tried to, had the weird notion that after killing him things will be OK, and claimed that privilege resides with them only when in fact privilege resides with God and He grants it to whomever He wills.

IMHO, Muslim scholars did not heed the lesson of 2:104-2:112, in that they continued to use the word naskh in the context of abrogation, and thus fell for the wicked plot the Jews of the time had started. God teaches us in this segment of verses to avoid using words that can be interpreted badly, but we didn't listen.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 15 Jun 2010, 17:39 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The parallel between this episode and the story of the half-brothers of Joseph (PBUH) is striking! In both events, a group of people who began to think they are privileged envied the "new comer" for getting the privilege instead, wished to kill him and tried to, had the weird notion that after killing him things will be OK, and claimed that privilege resides with them only when in fact privilege resides with God and He grants it to whomever He wills.

Very nice parallel. Looking at today's world, maintaining privilege within a group is treated by the group as if it is a moral value.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 16 Jun 2010, 05:11 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Al-Zalmi makes a shaky argument on page 23 of his book. As he points out that ما in 2:106 is a conditional article, he asserts that it means إن (he singles out this article among the other possible conditional articles). He then argues that since إن does not suggest that the condition has occurred like إذا would, 2:106 cannot be taken as evidence that abrogation has occurred. The problem for me is that 2:106 uses ما not إن , and he did not justify or give a reference for why ما matches إن in particular in its implication about the condition.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2010, 06:08 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Here is my humble interpretation of 2:106, which has a significant overlap with Asad's interpretation and I am sure with other interpretations as well.

Indeed, including much old interpretations. Al-Zalmi mentions on page 44 of his book that abrogating previously revealed books is the interpretation of Al-Razi (Diyaa Al-Deen Omar, father of the more famous Fakhr Al-Deen) in his exegesis "The Big Exegesis and the Keys of the Unseen" 2/247. Other sources attribute this book to the son, so I am not clear on that issue, but what matters here is that the book was written 8 centuries ago, so that answers the question here:

Pragmatic wrote:
Interpretation by Dr. Mostafa Zaid
...
He does not mention or counter the interpretation of 2:106 as a follow-up to 2:105. I know for a fact that this interpretation was mentioned by Asad who predated Zaid, but it is possible that Zaid did not look at non-Arabic references. I wonder if relating 2:106 to 2:105 was mentioned in any of the traditional exegeses of the Quran. I just find it strange that he is not addressing this interpretation, while he addressed far less plausible interpretations.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 24 Jul 2010, 04:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 30, makes a very interesting observation about the word آية. He noticed that the word has never been used in the Quran, in the singular, to mean anything but a sign. I haven't exhaustively verified that yet but I'm sure he's right. The only times the word definitely meant "verse" was when it came in the plural, آيات.

`Ataaya uses this as one of his arguments that 2:106 does not refer to abrogation of verses at all.

The words God has used to refer to verses, besides آيات are كتاب (Book) and سورة (Chapter).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2010, 10:48 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 30, makes a very interesting observation about the word آية. He noticed that the word has never been used in the Quran, in the singular, to mean anything but a sign.

Interesting observation indeed, subject to verification.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2010, 11:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Part 1 in the Quran contains the entire context of 2:106. It was striking to me how consistent it is with the interpretation of 2:106 as abrogation of previous books. One of the striking passages comes a few verses before 2:106,


_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 22:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Pragmatic wrote:
There is one linguistic point that convinces me that this is the correct interpretation of 2:106. The Arabic word " خير " is used in both 2:105 and 2:106. The word means both "good" and "better" and also "choice" as an adjective (describing something chosen for quality). In 2:105, "خير" is what the disbelievers don't like us to get from God, and in 2:106, "خير" describes what God promises to bring if He abrogates a verse. Coming in two adjacent verses, I believe that "خير" is referring to the same thing in both verses which would be the Quran, and this supports the interpretation that 2:106 is about the Quran abrogating previous books.

Even this point that I am so proud of :D is covered by Al-Jabri at the top of page 151.

Also noted by Al-Zamakhshary according to page 23 of this book.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 12 Sep 2010, 17:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Interpretation of the Abrogation Verse 2:106
PostPosted: 12 Sep 2010, 18:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He also 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.

This is a very important point, substantively and strategically since it is attributed to Ibn Abbas. Just to clarify, the part about Ibn Masseoud and Al-Tabari is something the author mentioned? I am just trying to see if our observation about the companions of Ibn Masseoud has been noted by others.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 16  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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 28 Mar 2024, 10:43

All times are UTC

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