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 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 29 Oct 2010, 17:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 77-78 (items 799-800) reports that Ibn Zayd said that

was abrogated by fighting. At-Tabari seemed against it at first then sounded like he accepted it in the end, as quoted by Dr. Zayd.

An-Nahhaas wrote that the subject of this verse, said the majority except Ibn Nujayh, is punitive damages and such.

Dr. Zayd rejects the claim because he sees no contradiction between punishment-in-kind and fighting the polytheists. Furthermore, he says, the command in 42:40 covers Muslims too while the sword verse covers polytheists only.

Ibn Al-Jawzi reported this case too, but said that the claim was that the abrogating was claimed to be the subsequent statement "But whoever pardons and reforms then his reward is upon God". Ibn Al-Jawzi comments on that claim that only people who do not understand the abrogating and the abrogated would make such a claim, since what the verse simply means is that if one will punish a bad deed, one should punish it in kind, but to pardon is better.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Zayd,
At-Tabari (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Nujayh (implied, per An-Nahhaas).

Against:
An-Nahhaas (implied, according to Dr. Zayd),
The majority (implied by An-Nahhaas, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (who rejected the claim that the verse is self abrogating, quoted by 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: 30 Oct 2010, 04:29 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
If the sword verse ordered the forced conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, then how come the Prophet (PBUH) forbade fighting or killing women, children, the elderly and the sick among them? Why did he allow all those folks to keep their beliefs?

This is a key point.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 07 Feb 2011, 19:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 54, Ibn Salaama says something very strange:

ـ(إن المنافقين في الدرك الأسفل من النار ... إلى قوله ... نصيرا)ـ [١٤٥]. ثم استثناه فقال ـ(إلا الذين تابوا وأصلحوا واعتصموا بالله وأخلصوا دينهم لله فأولئك مع المؤمنين)ـ [١٤٦]. فنسخها بآية السيف

I'm not sure how to translate that, because it's incoherent. He mentions 4:145 then literally says, "then He excepted and said 4:146, then He abrogated it with the sword verse."

Does he mean that the exception in 4:146 was abrogated by the sword verse?! That hypocrites who repent and become good Muslims are still to be fought?!

Or does he mean that the hypocrites will not be in the lowest pit of Hell or will have someone to help them?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 06:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 67, twice lists

as being abrogated: once by

and another case by the sword verse. He says that there was a mutual agreement between the Prophet (PBUH) and several Arab districts: that he does not fight them and they do not fight him, and when he needs them they aid him and if they need him he aids them. All that was abrogated, Ibn Salaama claims, by the sword verse. Thus implying that the Prophet (PBUH) now may fight those districts even if they don't and may not aid them when they need him! What an ugly thing to say about the Prophet (PBUH) after he died and cannot defend his reputation!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 21:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Believe it or not, Ibn Salaama actually wrote that

were abrogated by the sword verse. He says that on page 68 of his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم. There is no rational explanation for this, unless he meant naskh by its general meaning of elaboration or amendment rather than its acquired meaning of abrogation.

According to Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 90, Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi made the same claim, but Ibn Hazm said that the abrogating phrase was فإن تابوا وأقاموا الصلاة وآتوا الزكاة فخلوا سبيلهم (But if they repent, establish prayer and give alms, then let them go). Al-Jabri rejects the claim saying that a truce does not preclude fighting and killing after its term has ended, and a truce does not conflict with accepting repentance, so where is the contradiction that gives cause to claim abrogation?

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

Against:
Al-Jabri.

Consequnces:
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 90-95, after explaining why he rejects this claim, discusses the clause فسيحوا في الأرض أربعة أشهر (So, travel in the land for four months), in 9:2. He hails this command as a reconciliation effort for enemies of Islam. He points out that physically separating the polytheists from the Muslims can down the animosity of polytheists against Muslims, which may lead to peaceful co-existence. He points out to an event when Umar ibn Al-Khattaab, may God have been pleased with him, did exactly that with the Christians of Najraan. He gave them fertile land in Iraq, lifted the Jizya requirement on them for two years until they can build their revenues and commanded Muslim rulers in neighboring areas to protect them! That is a man who understood Islam and understood that 9:2 was not abrogated!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 22:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 72, lists

among the verses abrogated by the sword verse. He doesn't say why however. Even if we accept the claim that the sword verse allowed the extermination of all polytheists, which of course it doesn't, then doesn't 10:102 confirm that? Weren't "the days of those who passed before them" annihilation days?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 05:41 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
He mentions 4:145 then literally says, "then He excepted and said 4:146, then He abrogated it with the sword verse."
Does he mean that the exception in 4:146 was abrogated by the sword verse?! That hypocrites who repent and become good Muslims are still to be fought?!

I am pretty sure that's what he means since no alternative makes sense. Of course, I disagree.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 17 Feb 2011, 05:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Believe it or not, Ibn Salaama actually wrote that 9:1-2 were abrogated by the sword verse.

Wasn't Chapter 9 revealed all at once? Doesn't this preclude abrogation of any of its verses by other verses in the same Chapter since none of the verses was put into practice yet (a requirement for valid abrogation put forward by many pro-abrogation scholars)?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 18 Feb 2011, 18:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Doesn't this preclude abrogation of any of its verses by other verses in the same Chapter since none of the verses was put into practice yet (a requirement for valid abrogation put forward by many pro-abrogation scholars)?

The likelihood is that he simply repeated what others have said without scrutiny.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Oct 2011, 16:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 12, writes about scholars who listed the verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He says that Ibn Khuzayma wrote that they are nine, while Ibn Al-Baarizi wrote that they are eight. Neither one said what their basis was for such conclusion! Dr. Nassaar comments, correctly, that if we were to concede that the verses that order fighting abrogate the verses that order patience and pardon, then Makki's list of all pardon verses makes more sense.

_________________
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 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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 19 Oct 2019, 06:38

All times are UTC

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