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  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 13:24 
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 159-163, makes the argument that Chapter 9, especially verses 1-11 mandate an all-out fight on all non-Muslims and that it abrogates verses that exempt covenanted people, such as

And verses that exempt peaceful people, such as

Those two claims were made by Ibn Abbaas. Ibn Salaam comments that Chapter 9 "abrogated the armistice and breached treaties!"

Does it? How come he glossed over the verses of exceptions, such as

And

And how come he glossed over verses that specify the contingency and reason for the fight, such as

And

Aren't those verses in Chapter 9 too? Aren't they in the same context of the fight verses? Why did God put those verses there? For cursory reading? Or for instruction? Those verses are mandated the same way the fight verses are mandated. And neither set of verses abrogate the other set. They all, together, make up the instruction about fighting the polytheists.

What Ibn Salaam succeeds in is demonstrating that a number of prominent scholars, such as Mak-hool Ash-Shaami, Ibn Shihaab, and possibly Al-Awzaa`i, believed in all-out war, but not that this is a correct interpretation. Ibn Salaam does show that this interpretation was not unanimous. He quotes Ibn `Umar, `Ataa', `Amr ibn Deenaar and Sufyaan Ath-Thawri ruling that fighting is not a mandate on people like the five pillars are. Ibn Salaam's own opinion is that fighting is a mandate on Muslims as a whole but can be achieved by a portion of them (فرض كفاية).

It is particularly ironic that a man named Ibn Salaam (son of peace) would actually believe in an unprovoked war against all non-Muslims.

See also an extensive discussion of this subject in the topic "Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?".

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 05 Sep 2010, 13:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ikrima, Al-Hasan, Qataada (according to At-Tabari, per Dr. Zayd),
`Ataa' Al-Kuraasaani and Ibn Zayd (according to An-Nahhaas, per Dr. Zayd),
Mak-hool Ash-Shaami, Ibn Shihaab (implied),
Al-Awzaa`i (possible, said Ibn Salaam),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Salaama (he said the abrogating is 60:9, then both 60:8-9 were abrogated by the sword verse!),
Ibn Hilaal, Al-Karmi (according to Dr. Zayd).

Against:
Ibn `Umar (implied),
Ibn Abbaas (quoted by Shu`la),
`Ataa' ibn Abi-Rabaah and `Amr ibn Deenaar (implied),
Al-Hasan (who narrated a hadeeth that confirms the principles of refuge and neutrality),
Mujaahid and As-Suyooti (implied, according to Al-Jabri),
Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi (quoted by Haani Taahir and Dr. Zayd),
Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi (according to Haani Taahir),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Sayyid Qutb (implied),
Wahba Az-Zuhayli (in his book آثار الحرب في الفقه الإسلامي, page 207, quoted by Haani Taahir),
Haani Taahir.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2010, 02:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Salaam comments that Chapter 9 "abrogated the armistice and breached treaties!"

So, did the opening of


abrogate that?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 01 Oct 2010, 04:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Salaam comments that Chapter 9 "abrogated the armistice and breached treaties!"

So, did the opening of 5:1 abrogate that?

Good catch! Especially since Chapter 5 was revealed after Chapter 9. What the pro-fight scholars have is selective evidence, appeal to loyalty, appeal to tradition and appeal to grievance. Some of them have even used pseudo-reasoning techniques such as ad hominem, peer pressure and scare tactics.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 11 Oct 2010, 06:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Haani Taahir makes a great point in his book تنزيه آي القرآن عن النسخ والنقصان, pages 108-111. He observes that the impetus for claiming abrogation in most cases has been the misinterpretation of the verse. However, in the case of 4:90-91, there is unanimity about what it means! All have said it means neutrality. What the scholars differed on was whether neutrality has been overturned by the sword verse. Some scholars, such as An-Nahhaas have opined that it was; that non-Muslims, other than people of the Book, have two choices: Islam or the sword.

Can you spell Islamophobia? It is the writings of some Muslim scholars that caused it. Thankfully, other writers in the past, such as Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi and Jamaal-ud-Deen Al-Qaasimi disagreed, also modern ones such as Sayyid Qutb and Wahba Az-Zuhayli.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 07:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
opined that it was; that non-Muslims, other than people of the Book, have two choices: Islam or the sword.

What is the ruling if a polytheist refused to become a Muslim, but pretended to become a Christian instead, without practicing anything of that religion? Are they going to go after him now and threaten that either he goes to Church or they will kill him?

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:1-11 abrogate 4:90 and 60:8?
PostPosted: 08 Apr 2011, 23:50 
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 124, says that the abrogating verse of 60:8 is the next verse,

And then he says that both 60:8-9 were abrogated "in meaning only" by the sword verse!

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 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 12 Nov 2019, 00:38

All times are UTC

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