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  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 48:2 abrogate 6:15, 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 02:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
According to Ibn Al-Jawzi, this verse

was claimed abrogated by


Here is what he wrote,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة الأنعام. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "إني أخاف إن عصيت ربي عذاب يوم عظيم". زعم بعض ناقلي التفسير أنه كان يجب على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يخاف عاقبة الذنوب ثم نسخ ذلك بقوله تعالى "ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر". قلت فالظاهر من هذه المعاصي أن المراد بها الشرك، لأنها جاءت في عقيب قوله "ولا تكونن من المشركين"، فإذا قدرنا العفو عن ذنب إذا كان لم تقدر المسامحة في شرك لو تصور إلا أنه لما لم يجز في حقه بقي ذكره على سبيل التهديد والتخويف من عاقبته، كقوله "لئن أشركت ليحبطن عملك"، فعلى هذا الآية محكمة، يؤكده أنها خبر والأخبار لا تنسخ


He states that 6:15 is a statement of fact and thus cannot be abrogated.

Actually, 6:15 is a command to the Prophet to make the statement, "I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the torment of a tremendous day," That command is not abrogated by 48:2 because 48:2 did not tell the Prophet to stop saying that!

I can see why some thought that 48:2 gave the Prophet (PBUH) absolution from future sins, and therefore, the Prophet (PBUH) need not make the statement in 6:15, or have the worry expressed in it. But the Prophet kept worrying to the end. At the end of his farewell sermon, he asked Muslims, "Have I conveyed the Message?" When they answered in the affirmative, he raised his hands to the heavens and said out loud, "O God, be my witness!"

Furthermore, God continued to advise the Prophet (PBUH) to seek forgiveness for his infractions, as in the last revealed Chapter 110,

So, why didn't the claimants of this case claim that Chapter 110 abrogated 48:2?

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi and Ibn Salaama made the same claim about

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 48:2 abrogate 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 19 Feb 2010, 18:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi also reports that 10:15 was claimed abrogated. He does not immediately tell by what, but as one reads further, it becomes clear that the claimed abrogating verse is 48:2. He says,

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي ادعي عليهن النسخ في سورة يونس عليه السلام. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "إني أخاف إن عصيت ربي عذاب يوم عظيم"، الكلام في هذه كالكلام في نظيرتها في الأنعام، وقد تكلمنا عليها هناك، ومقصود الآيتين تهديد المخالف، وأضيف إلى الرسول ليصعب الأمر فيه، وليس ها هنا نسخ. ويقوي ما قلنا إن المراد بالمعصية ها هنا تبديل القرآن والتقول على الله تعالى وموافقة المشركين على ما هم عليهم، وهذا لا يدخل في قوله "ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك". كيف وقد قال عز وجل "ولو تقول علينا بعض الأقاويل" وقال "لئن أشركت ليحبطن عملك" وقال "إذا لأذقناك ضعف الحياة وضعف الممات"؟ وإنما هذا وأمثاله للمبالغة في بيان آثار المعاصي، وليس من ضرورة ما علق بشرط أن يقع.

باب ذكر ما ادعي عليه النسخ في سورة الزمر.
...
ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "إني أخاف إن عصيت ربي عذاب يوم عظيم". قد ادعى قوم نسخها بقوله "ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر"، وقد منعنا ذلك في ذكر نظيرتها في الأنعام


He also says that

was claimed abrogated by 48:2 as well.

Ibn Al-Jawzi rejects any such claim and his reasoning makes a number of sound arguments, which I wish were followed by the pro-abrogation people:
  1. The meaning of 10:15 is to indicate a threat to whoever violates. It is addressed to the Prophet (PBUH) in order to drive the point home.
  2. That what is meant by disobedience is replacing the Quran, attributing to God what He did not say, or agreeing with the polytheists.
  3. That such claim violates other verses in which the Prophet is warned against doing anything in the preceding point, verses such as

    And
  4. Not everything that was stated by a condition has happened.

Shouldn't this methodology have been consistently used?

  • Do not allow replacement of the Quran! And isn't that what abrogation is?
  • Do not read into a verse what it doesn't say,
  • Do not take verses in isolation. Consider all of the Quran before making an abrogation claim, and
  • The abrogation verse is conditional, therefore it cannot be used as proof that abrogation did occur; it only proves that it can.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 20 Feb 2010, 07:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Not everything that was stated by a condition has happened.

Great example of that.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2010, 07:42 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Dr. Mostafa Zaid refutes this claim under the "statement of fact" section on pages 426-427 in volume 1 of his book. He includes claims that two other verses (6:5 and 39:14) that included the same phrasing as 10:15 were also abrogated by 48:2.

His first argument is that the context of "Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day" in all three verses is linked to associating others with God, and that such offense does not fall under forgiveness per other Quranic verses. I don't see how this is a refutation that 48:2 abrogated them though, since the point of abrogation is that 48:2 promises forgiveness while the 3 verses threaten punishment, and that situation is not resolved but rather exacerbated by Zaid's argument. Anyway, he finally invokes the statement-of-fact argument.

I believe the remark about the conditional is the correct argument here.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 17:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Al`Ataa'iqi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Al-Baarizi (implied, according to Az-Zalmi).

Against:
Most exegetes (according to Shu`la),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Al`Arabi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2010, 19:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, page 363, refutes this claim citing his arguments about the claim of abrogation of 6:15. He then adds this key point (I translate):
Dr. Az-Zalmi wrote:
How can a verse be repeated twice for its importance, and then gets abrogated? I leave the answer to whomever has a sound mind.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 6:15, 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011, 22:06 
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 71, writes another strange statement about this claim which he supports. He says that 10:15 was abrogated by 48:2. Then he adds that "it" was abrogated by the sword verse! Is he referring to 48:2, or 10:15 or both?

But the incoherence doesn't stop there. He actually says that

is the first of the Quran that was revealed!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 03 Jul 2013, 18:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
I believe the remark about the conditional is the correct argument here.

I think the claimants of this case may have thought that even if the condition had materialized that the Prophet (PBUH) would still be forgiven, per 48:2, which they may have seen as an absolution of future sins. What that means, they may have thought, is that the Prophet (PBUH) need not worry about it because he's been forgiven.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 48:2 abrogate 6:15, 10:15 and 39:13?
PostPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 21:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 136, rejects this claim and sides with the majority of exegetes. He mentions a number of interpretations of 6:15. One of them is what I believe applies here, namely, that the verse states the ruling on disobedience of the Prophet (PBUH) to God if it were to occur. He cites this as a similar concept,

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 Nov 2019, 13:27

All times are UTC

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