TheMostReadBook.org

In his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 141-142, says that Imaam Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi has opined that abrogation only happens to rulings not initiated by the Quran. He gives the example of the redirection of the Qibla (prayer direction), and says that the initial direction was not something that God ordered. But, he said, we don't know if it was a revelation to the Prophet, i.e., a hadeeth, or his personal decision.

Al-Jabri agrees with Al-Qaasimi, but differs with him on allowing abrogation of the Sunna, which Al-Jabri defines as what the Prophet (PBUH) was inspired to say and do, not what he decided on his own to say or do. As such, nothing can abrogate the Sunna, but the Quran and the Sunna can abrogate the Prophet's personal decisions, peace be upon him.

While I agree with Al-Jabri, the dilemma is how do we know if a hadeeth is not inspired by God, if the text of the hadeeth does not explicitly say it?

Also, it is next to impossible to dismiss the case of visiting the graves as anything but a case of genuine abrogation.

People seem to overdo it when they support or oppose something. Although it would be 'neat' if no abrogation of any kind took place, things do not become true just because they sound neat. I have absolutely no problem with abrogation in the sunna as it is patently part of the dynamic phase of the religion. The problem with abrogation in the Quran is that the Quran was expressly left to us at the end of the Prophet's life in its final, static form to follow.

IMHO, the case you cite is particularly easy to resolve. The early Muslims had practiced many pagan rituals and customs before Islam. What they used to do at grave sites was contrary to Islam. Old habits are hard to break. Enough time needed to be allowed before Muslims fully grasped the concept of Tawheed (monotheism) and abandon customs that contradict it. That was the contingency for the prohibition made by the Prophet (PBUH) of visiting graves, though he did not say that. Many scholars made that explanation. Perhaps that's what you meant by the dynamic phase of Islam?

When enough time had passed, and the Prophet (PBUH) no longer feared that Muslims would engage in pagan customs, he allowed visiting the graves, because, as he said, they remind of death. That too was the contingency for the new directive!

I therefore do not actually see this as a case of abrogation per se. Both rulings are contingent IMHO. So, both rulings remain valid, if their contingencies arise.

That said, the narration on which this case is based, clearly says that it was the Prophet (PBUH) who issued both directives. Thus, both directives may have been the Prophet's opinion (PBUH) and not an inspiration. In fact, several versions of the narration, told by Burayda, Abu-Hurayra and others, and reported by Muslim, say that the allowance came after the Prophet (PBUH) asked God to let him visit his mother's grave and God allowed him. That may be interpreted as God abrogating a personal decision of the Prophet (PBUH).

There is no question that there is a wisdom in the two rulings. Nonetheless, there is no question in my mind that this is abrogation. Abrogation has a wisdom, too.

There was no contingency in the Prophet's (PBUH) language. None. If people find contingencies, that's interpretive, and is not part of the command. The only contingency is the timing of each hadeeth. That's the definition of abrogation.

What I meant by the dynamic phase is the phase where the religion was evolving, before it assumed its final form with the revelation of 5:2. Even without any abrogation, the religion was changing. At some point people didn't fast Ramadan and they were perfectly fine Muslims.

The timing of a hadeeth matters in order to conclude how to apply it. The timing of a Quranic verse doesn't matter IMHO. The Quran as a whole is the final version, and it was released in pieces during the dynamic phase for a reason. After the end of the dynamic phase with the death of the Prophet (PBUH), the Quran became one static document.

Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 197, introduces Sheikh Mustafa Shalaby, a professor of Islamic law at Al Az-har University. His thesis is entitled, "Rationalizing rulings" (تعليل الأحكام). In it, on page 307, he explains abrogation as follows (my translation), "An abrogated ruling was for a specific case and a specific benefit. When the situation changed, the ruling changed."

Al-Jabri correctly comments that this is not abrogation, since both rulings were contingent. Two rulings addressing two different matters.

This shows that a lot of scholars, past and recent, defend abrogation by citing irrelevant examples and explanations. Before an argument can be made, for or against a premise, the premise needs to be defined first!

Not only in abrogation, nor in religion in general for that matter, that I have observed a cultural trend to hedge and avoid being pinned down. If someone makes a crisp definition at the outset, that would leave what they say too vulnerable to being contradicted.

Dr. Husayn Nassaar, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 34, mentions a new name: Shams-ud-Deen Muhammad ibn Hamza Al-Fanaari Ar-Roomi. The man rejected the abrogation doctrine on a simple basis: That rulings are either for a term, or permanent. If they are for a term, then they are not abrogated when their term ends; their term ends!

As for permanent rulings, they cannot be abrogated because:

1. Abrogation leads to conflict between rulings. I'd add that the irony here is that the reason the pro-abrogation crowd advocates abrogation in the first place is their misconception that there are conflicts between the ruling of the Quran.
2. Abrogation leads to inability to express permanence. Great point!
3. Abrogation leads to inability to trust permanence.
4. Abrogation leads to allowance for annulling the law.

Dr. Nassaar mentions three more names on page 69, of scholars who rejected the abrogation doctrine and wrote books to prove their view:

• Ibn Al-Junayd Al-Iskaafi,
• Muhammad ibn Mustafa Al-Hadhari, and
• Abdul-Kareem Al-Khateeb.

I only wish that the good professor listed their books in his references appendix!

While I respect Ar-Roomi's position, it makes it clear how argumentative this whole debate has been, with everyone working the "slack" in the logic to support their own view, and not really responding to the specific points of the other camp. IMHO, to pin things down we need to

• establish, with supporting opinions from people of both camps, where the burden of proof in this case lies.
  
  
• crisply respond to the other camp's arguments, not ignore the elephant in the room and address the parts where we will sound good.
  
  
• be objective about our own arguments, admitting weakness of the points that are weak and discussing counterarguments to our own thesis. Your observation, Linguistic, about "ما من" is a case in point.

In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 9, Dr. Husayn Nassaar reports what Dr. Subhi As-Saalih wrote about abrogation, referring to the scholars who classified the Chapters of the Quran as either containing or free from abrogated verses:


Name one such explicit evidence. There is none. Opinions and interpretations by fellows of the Prophet or other scholars are not explicit evidence; they are opinions and interpretations.

Dr. Nassaar reports that Ibn Al-Jawzi commented on such classifications as "drivel" (تخريف).

This is a nice passage for the burden of proof writeup.