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 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Aug 2010, 06:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
The straight logic of whom and when to fight is made clear in the Quran in many places. One such place is in Chapter 4,

How clearer can the argument be? There are two categories: one hostile and one peaceful. We are to fight back the hostiles and not fight those protected by a treaty or those who do not fight us. Notice how God uses the past tense in 4:90, "God has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them"? The ruling of God has been made and sealed: no fighting those who do not fight us and no fighting those with whom we have a treaty. So, the sword verse addresses the hostiles only. How hard is that to understand?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2010, 13:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 514, says that this verse too was abrogated by the sword verse,

Professor Al-Mi`yaar Al-Idreesi, who verified and presented Al-Khazraji's manuscript said in the footnotes that the manuscript referred to this verse instead,

He had to correct that because that section of the manuscript, which is organized by the order of verses in the bound volume of the Quran, is addressing Chapter 22.

Al-Khazraji says that it's been said that 22:69 is not abrogated because it's a declarative statement about what will happen in the Day of Resurrection. That's how Dr. Mustafa Zayd sees it too. I certainly agree.

Who said what:
22:69:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Al-Qurtubi (implied),
Ibn Salaama and Al-Karmi (according to Dr. Zayd),
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
Ibn Jareer At-Tabari (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2010, 20:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Just when I thought there can be more claims, comes one more! This one is reported by Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, pages 576-577,

He said that Qataada and others made the claim and he agrees with it. He said that Qataada's argument was that 29:46 forbade argumentation with the People of the Book and the sword verse orders fighting them and there is no argumentation tougher than fighting.

However, Ibn Zayd said it was not abrogated. His reasoning is that those of them who are believers may quote original revelation that comes true.

Mujaahid also said it was not abrogated because it applies to those of them who fight and would not pay the Jizya. He must be referring to the exception in the verse which he sees as compatible with the sword verse or the Jizya verse, not to 29:46, in which case he would be the only one who got it right. 29:46 simply sets a principle of civilized, courteous dialog with the people of the Book. It does not preclude collecting the defense tax from Christian and Jewish citizens under Muslim rule, by force if necessary.

Who said what:
For:
Qataada,
Muqaatil (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn As-Saa'ib and Al-Kalbi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
Ibn Abbaas and most exegetes (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Zayd,
Mujaahid,
At-Tabari (according to Ibn Katheer and Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas (leaning, according to Dr. Zayd),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2010, 21:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Al-Jawzi also refutes the claim about 31:23, made by some exegetes, saying that the verse simply comforts the Prophet (PBUH) who always felt bad that some of his people would not believe. That is obvious.

Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 583, erroneously referred to

as being abrogated by the sword verse. His reviewer, Professor Al-Mi`yaar Al-Idreesi, detected that the reference is out of place and concluded that Al-Khazraji must have been thinking of 31:23. However, Al-Idreesi said, that does not mean that 30:44 was not also abrogated by the sword verse, which is what Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi has said.

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

Against:
None.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 23 Aug 2010, 22:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji adds this claim in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 624,

And says that An-Nahhaas, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama, Makki and Ibn Al`Arabi said so too.

But according to Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 167 in the footnotes, what An-Nahhaas said was that it is possible that 38:17 is not abrogated and that it means a discipline from God to the Prophet and his followers. Abu-Abdillah Shu`la agrees.

Who said what:
For:
An-Nahhaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Makki,
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
An-Nahhaas (quoted by Dr. Faaris from his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 213),
Ibn Al-Jawzi and Aş-Şa`di (both said that Chapter 38 has no abrogated or abrogating verses),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 30 Aug 2010, 06:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Jamaal Saalih `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 152, quotes Muhammad Al-Ghazaali, the renowned scholar in his book كيف نتعامل مع القرآن, pages 82-82 saying (my translation),

Muhammad Al-Ghazaali wrote:
The claim that 120 verses of prosletization were abrogated by the sword verse is a strange foolishness, proving that the Muslim masses, in the days of mental or scholarly retardation in our civilization, were ignorant of the Quran and forgot with this ignorance how to call to God and how to move the prosletization forward. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the failure of the Islamic call and the stagnation of this call in many days in fulfilling its mission; the sword was thought to be the way to fulfill the duty of conveyance and that is invalid by consensus of the rational.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2010, 14:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, page 156, quotes Ibn Abbaas saying that

is among four verses that were abrogated by 9:5 and 9:29. And it appears that he agrees. His argument is that fighting was prohibited at first and then recommended and then mandated.

That is a point worth discussing. Was fighting prohibited at first? Do any of the verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse say, "Do not fight or else you will be punished"? That's what a prohibition would look like. Obviously, no such verse exists. Fighting was never prohibited. Pardoning and patience were recommended. Big difference. A recommendation can only be abrogated by a prohibition. The sword verse does not prohibit pardoning or patience; it only mandates fighting back those who fight us.

Scholars have all agreed that the reason for "abrogation" of patience and pardoning is that Muslims were weak at first, so fighting would be tantamount to suicide. But now that they are strong, they can and must fight. If that is true, then we have a contingency in the ruling. A contingent ruling cannot be abrogated unless the contingency continues. In other words, abrogating patience and pardoning cannot happen unless Muslims are still weak but yet they are ordered to fight and not be patient.

So, to refine the issue further, the question to ask is this: If Muslims are attacked and are strong enough to fend off the attack, can they pardon the attacker and not fight? No; they must fight back until the enemy chooses peace. Consider

And

What if Muslims are attacked but they are weak? Then the contingency mentioned above kicks in again and thus, they should not fight. If one says that they should because

orders them to fight even when they are weak, then one is saying that the contingency they agreed existed has been abrogated. Isn't that a change of mind (بداء), God forbid?

The only logical solution to this dilemma is to recognize that there were no wars launched by the polytheists against Muslims while they lived in Mecca. There was persecution, but not an armed struggle. Thus, all of the pardoning and patience verses were about enduring persecution for a while. Many of the endurance verses came with a time limit, e.g.,

Wars started after the migration to Medina, when the polytheists resolved to eradicating Muslims. That's when the time came. That's when Muslims were allowed to fight. That is the pretext of Chapters 8 and 9. Consider,

And

And

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 04 Sep 2010, 15:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book النسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 158-159, quotes three narrations from Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid and Abu-Hurayra all saying that the Prophet (PBUH) invalidated his peace treaty with the polytheists and gave them four months grace period. Those with whom he did not have a treaty, he gave them fifty days reprieve. When the period is over, he was ordered to put the sword on them if they do not accept Islam! As for

Ibn Abbaas said it was for the people of Mecca only. How did he arrive at that conclusion?

Authenticity of those narrations aside, it appears that it's their interpretation of what happened, not a direct quote from the Prophet (PBUH). I am yet to find evidence that the prophet's treaties with the polytheists were indefinite. All evidence is to the contrary; they had a term, the term was honored and a grace period was added on top of it. Consider,

Which immediately precedes the sword verse. Is that not clear that the sword verse only applies to militant polytheists? Even with those, there are exceptions, such as

Which immediately follows the sword verse. Is that not clear that the sword verse only applies to militant polytheists?

So, for the umpteenth time, the renouncement in 9:1 and the sword verse are about militant polytheists. The two verses forbid any more treaties with them and give them an ultimatum: accept Islam or live with us peacefully.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 13:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 165-166, discusses whether fighting in the sacrosanct months is permitted. He starts out by observing how God made those months sacred and forbade fighting in them, for instance,

And

Then proceeded to discuss whether those verses were abrogated. First, he quotes `Ataa' being asked, "How come they were not allowed to fight in the sacred months and now they are allowed?" He answered, "By God, it is not allowed to fight at the Sacrosanct Mosque or in the sacred months, except if they are fought there. That was never abrogated."

Then he quotes Jaabir ibn Abdillah saying that the Prophet, peace be upon him, never violated the sanctity of the sacred months except when he was attacked in them.

Yet, Sa`eed ibn Al-Musayyib and Sulaymaan ibn Yasaar have ruled that it is permissible. Ibn Salaam then tells that the allowance of violating the sacred months is the consensus of the the scholars of Syria and Iraq and that their evidence is 9:5, the sword verse. So, there you have the Quran forbidding fighting and the Prophet (PBUH) fighting only for self defense, yet a majority of Muslims ruling that fighting without necessity is OK. Go figure.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2010, 16:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In the footnaotes on page 125, Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni, the commentator on Aş-Şa`di's book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, says that Ibn Al`Arabi has written in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ that

Is the only verse in Chapter 21 that was abrogated.

Dr. Al-Husayni did not say what Ibn Al`Arabi said was the abrogating verse, but I surmised it must be the sword verse as usual.

_________________
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 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 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 Nov 2019, 12:37

All times are UTC

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