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  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 05 Oct 2010, 02:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
As I read Aş-Şa`di's book التبيان في الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن المجيد, commentator Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni mentioned three times so far that Ibn Salaama has opined that a verse was abrogated in words but not in meaning!

What exactly does that mean? First, we have the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood inventing a separation between a verse and its ruling, then we have Ibn Salaama inventing a separation between words and their meaning?

The three cases Ibn Salaama so opined are 27:92, 31:23 and 39:41 all of which he said were abrogated, in words but not in meaning, by the sword verse.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 07 Oct 2010, 06:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi, in his exegesis,
محاسن التأويل، دار إحياء الكتب العربية، الطبعة الرابعة، ١٩٨٠م

makes a profound observation about the preservation verse,

He says that the the preservation action in the verse is nominal (present participle), which means permanence! I'd add that it is also emphasized by إنا (Verily, We...).

That got me thinking that the revelation action is verbal and in the past tense, which in Arabic means an action that is done with and can never be changed. It's a statement of fact. It is also doubly emphasized.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2010, 06:06 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
I'd add that it is also emphasized by إنا (Verily, We...).

Doubly so, given the lam in لحافظون .

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Scholars who rejected all claims of abrogation in the Quran
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2010, 01:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
  1. Abu-Muslim Muhammad ibn Bahr Al-Asfahaani,
  2. Imaam Muhammad Abduh,
  3. Muhammad Rasheed Ridha,
  4. Muhammad Asad,
  5. Abdul-Muta`aal A-Jabri.
  6. Sayyid Qutb,
  7. Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
  8. Muhammad Mahmood Nada,
  9. Muhammad Abu-Zahra,
  10. Muhammad Al-Ghazaali,
  11. Ahmad Hasan Al-Baaqoori.
  12. Abdul-Razzaaq Nawfal,
  13. Abdullah Al-Alayli (from Lebanon),
  14. Jawaad Moosa Muhammad Affaana,
  15. Dr. Mustafa Ibrahim Az-Zalmi,
  16. Jamaal Saalih `Ataaya,
  17. Dr. Nehru Abdus-Saboor Tantaawi,
  18. Husaam Rushdi Al-Ghaali,
  19. Ihaab Hasan Abduh,
  20. Haani Taahir,
  21. Jamaal Al-Banna,
  22. Dr. Taaha Jaabir Al-`Ulwaani,
  23. Dr. Muhammad `Imaara,
  24. Dr. Muhammad Haytham Al-Khayyaat,
  25. Shams-ud-Deen Muhammad ibn Hamza Al-Fanaari Ar-Roomi, according to Dr. Husayn Nassaar,
  26. Muhammad ibn Mustafa Al-Hadhari, quoted by Dr. Husayn Nassaar in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 35. He could have made a typo in his name and meant Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek) listed below,
  27. Ibn Al-Junayd Al-Iskaafi, according to Dr. Husayn Nassaar in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 69,
  28. Abdul-Kareem Al-Khateeb, according to Dr. Husayn Nassaar in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 69.

Apparently, but not certain:
  1. Ibn Hazm Az-Zhaahiri*,
  2. Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Raazi,
  3. Az-Zarkashi*, who accepted naskh but not abrogation, implied by his quote, cited by Dr. Husayn Nassaar,
  4. Ahmad Shah Waliullah Dehlvi*,
  5. Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
  6. The Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs,
  7. Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi,
  8. Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy,
  9. Dr. Muhammad Saalih Ali Mustafa,
  10. Basheer-ud-Deen Mahmood,
  11. Abdur-Rahmaan Hasan Habanka Al-Maydaani,
  12. Ibn `Uthaymeen (implied as quoted by Dr. Al-Ghaali),
  13. Dr. Abdul-Mun`im An-Nimr.

*These scholars believed in naskh in its comprehensive meaning but not in abrogation, as implied by their writings.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2010, 20:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Mahmood Nada writes in the introduction of his book النسخ في القرآن بين المؤيدين والمعارضين, pages 6-7, that all types of abrogation did not make sense to him, but he hesitated to discuss it because "the elite exegetes and Imaams have taught it."

That went by until he read the explanation, by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Madani in his book المجتمع الإسلامي كما تنظمه سورة النساء (Islamic society as Chapter 4 organizes it), of 4:15-16, and how he reconciled them with 24:2. Then he read Mufti Mahmood Shaltoot's book الإسلام عقيدة وشريعة (Islam is a theology and a way of life), which confirmed the reconciliation. Nada became convinced that the abrogation doctrine may not be valid and that got him to research the subject in detail.

He states in the book that he agrees that abrogation in the Quran is possible but never happened. He says that all the evidence the scholars cited to prove that abrogation is possible has been successfully refuted by other scholars.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 02 Jan 2011, 22:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
According to this discussion topic, Dr. Yoosuf Al-Qaradhaawi, the renowned Islamic scholar, said in an interview that his view on abrogation has been influenced by Dr. Mustafa Zayd's book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, and he came to realize that abrogation in the Quran is much narrowed than he was taught. He figured the number of valid cases are even less than the five Dr. Zayd settled for.

We may hear him soon rejecting the doctrine altogether, may God give him a long life.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2011, 07:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
We may hear him soon rejecting the doctrine altogether

He all but said it in his quote: "وأنا لا أكاد أرى نسخًا في القرآن الكريم حقيقة" in the article you referenced.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2011, 18:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Muhammad Al-Ghazaali started the chapter about abrogation in his acclaimed book نظرات في القرآن, page 194, with these words (my translation),

"Are there verses in the Quran whose rulings have been annulled, remaining in the bound volume for memorandum and history, as they say, recited in the hope of getting the reward for recitation only, and looked at like precious artifacts in museums, kept there only to record their era but have no impact on the present or the future?"

Do you get the feeling that he does not approve of the abrogation doctrine? LOL.

In the next page, he strongly criticizes those who opined that the sword verse has abrogated all other verses which specify how to deal with non-Muslims! He says that such claim is "an amazing dare against the Revelation!" He adds, "That interpretation, in addition to being wrong, is unjust to the Quran and a prejudice against its robust course of dealing with various classes of humanity."

He wrote the first edition of this book in 1958, making him one of the earliest renowned scholars who opposed the abrogation doctrine.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 139-140, quotes Al-Jabaa'i saying that it is invalid to rely on singles (narrations narrated by a few) in determining the abrogation of a verse. Al-Jabri follows that by saying that all evidence of abrogation, bar none, is singles attributed to other than the Prophet (PBUH), and therefore, is unacceptable for such a serious decision.

Isn't that another thing that should have been obvious to everybody?

Al-Jabri then introduces a new explanation of what the foundationists may have meant by naskh. He quotes Al-Ghazaali implying equivalence between abrogation and contingencies. That is, when a contingency for a ruling is present, so is the ruling and when it is not, the ruling is "mansookh."

If that was what they had in mind, then they have bundled yet another concept, contingent ruling, under the ever expanding umbrella of abrogation! Contingent ruling is not abrogation. Abrogation is the permanent cancellation of a prior ruling.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scholars opinions about abrogation
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2011, 21:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Here is the translation of what Al-Jabri says:

The Shafeiya said: Abrogation is not proved by a Sahabi saying "The ruling was such and such then it was abrogated" because of the possibility that what was said comes from analysis by the Sahabi, not originating from the Prophet (PBUH)"

Al-Jabri goes on to say that the Hanafi school disagrees with that view.

I read that writeup just now. Al-Jabri mentions the following as well,
  1. Abul-Hasan Al-Karkhi, a Hanafi scholar, tried to reconcile the opinions of his teachers, the Hanafis, with those of the Shaafi`is. He proposed that if the narrator mentioned the abrogating, then it may have been his opinion, but if he did not name the abrogating, then it is a valid evidence.

    What is the logic here? Why does one of these two situations constitute evidence of abrogation while the other doesn't? If a narrator did not say that he heard the Prophet (PBUH) say it, then it may be his opinion. Period.

  2. The notion that the Sunna can abrogate the Quran is theoretical only, according to the Shaafi`i scholars. They wrote that it never happened.

  3. The ruling of the Shaafi`is concerning abrogation of the Quran by the Sunna is that the hadeeth must be backed up by "Book." Doesn't that mean the Quran? If so, doesn't that make quoting the hadeeth as evidence redundant?

    If not, what other Book is there?

    That is a statement that needs verification, because Dr. Mustafa Zayd, a devout follower of Ash-Shaafi`i, wrote that the supporting evidence may be another hadeeth.

I'd add: What is left to prove abrogation? There is not one abrogation claim that has not originated from a Sahaabi or a second-generation (or later) scholar. If we follow Those Shaafi`i scholars ruling, then no abrogation claim holds.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 20  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 29 Jan 2022, 10:33

All times are UTC

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