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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2010, 02:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Ibn Al-Jawzi mentions that this verse, 5:99, has been claimed by some to have been abrogated by the sword verse.

Chapter 5, where 5:99 belongs, came after Chapter 48 that talks about a victory for the Muslims that has already taken place, so 5:99 came after the Muslims had fought. Therefore, the verse cannot be interpreted as precluding fighting.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 03:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that

was one of the verses claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He wrote,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "قل لست عليكم بوكيل". للمفسرين فيه قولان: الأول أنه اقتضى الاقتصار في حقهم على الإنذار من غير زيادة، ثم نسخ بآية السيف، وهذا المعنى في رواية الضحاك عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما. والثاني أن معناه لست حفيظا عليكم إنما أطلبكم بالظواهر من الإقرار والعمل لا بالأسرار، فعلي هذا هو محكم، وهذا هو الصحيح. يؤكد أنه خبر، والأخبار لا تنسخ وهذا اختيار جماعة منهم أبو جعفر النحاس


Ibn Abbaas said 6:66 was abrogated by the sword verse (9:5). Ibn Al-Jawzi says 6:66 is not abrogated because it's a statement. An-Nahhaas agrees it's not abrogated.

Well, 6:66 is not a statement; it's a command to make a statement and therefore it can be abrogated. It was not, IMHO, because 9:5 does not tell the Prophet (PBUH) to stop making that statement. In fact, the statement itself is always true: The Prophet, peace be upon him, was never the manager of those who disbelieve. Even if we accept that 9:5 applies to the whole world like some believe, it still does not make the Prophet a manager of the disbelievers; you don't manage people by killing them! That is exactly what Al-Hasan said.

Al-Ghaali reports in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 229-232, that in addition to Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Baarizi and Qataada all said 6:66 was abrogated by the sword verse. Ar-Raazi disagreed, and so did Ibn Al-Jawzi and Mujaahid. Also disagreeing was Rasheed Ridha. Ar-Raazi doubts the authenticity of the narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas. Al-Ghaali also rejects the abrogation claim.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Qataada,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Al-Hasan,
Ar-Raazi (who cast doubt on the authenticity of the narration attributed to Ibn Abbaas),
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Aş-Şa`di,
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Dr. Abdullah Al-Husayni,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 03:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
The list goes on. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that this verse,

was among those claimed abrogated by the sword verse. This is what he wrote,

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "وإذا رأيت الذين يخوضون في آياتنا فأعرض عنهم". المراد بهذا الخوض الخوض بالتكذيب، ويشبه أن يكون الإعراض المذكور ههنا منسوخة بآية السيف


Ibn Al-Jawzi thinks it is but does not comment further.

See also: Did 4:140 abrogate 6:68 or 6:69?

Who said what:
For:
At-Tabari and Ibn Katheer (implied, says Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning).

Against:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 04:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

as well as this verse

And

And

And

were all claimed abrogated by the sword verse! Here is what he wrote,

ذكر الآية الخامسة: قوله تعالى "وذر الذين اتخذوا دينهم لعبا ولهوا". للمفسرين فيه قولان:
الأول أنه اقتضى المسامحة لهم والاعتراض عنهم ثم نسخ بآية السيف، وهذا مذهب قتادة والسدي. أخبرنا ابن ناصر قال أبنا ابن أيوب قال أبنا أبو علي بن شاذان قال أبنا أبو بكر النجاد قال أبنا أبو داود السجستاني قال بنا أحمد بن محمد قال بنا عبد الله بن رجاء عن همام عن قتادة "وذر الذين اتخذوا دينهم لعبا ولهوا" ثم أنزل الله في براءة وأمرهم بقتالهم.
والثاني أنه خرج مخرج التهديد كقوله تعالى "ذرني ومن خلقت وحيدا"، فعلى هذا هو محكم، وهذا مذهب مجاهد وهو الصحيح.

ذكر الآية السادسة. قوله تعالى "قل الله ثم ذرهم"، فيه قولان: الأول أنه أمر له بالإعراض عنهم ثم نسخ بآية السيف، والثاني أنه تهديد فهو محكم وهذا أصح.

ذكر الآية الحادية عشرة: قوله تعالى "فذرهم وما يفترون"، إن قلنا إن هذا تهديد كما سبق في الآية السادسة فهو محكم، وإن قلنا إنه بترك قتالهم فهو منسوخ بآية السيف.

ذكر الآية الثالثة عشرة: قوله تعالى "قل يا قوم اعملوا على مكانتكم إني عامل فسوف تعلمون". للمفسرين فيها قولان: الأول أن المراد بها ترك قتال الكفار فهي منسوخة بآية السيف. والثاني أن المراد بها التهديد فعلى هذا هي محكمة وهذا هو الأصح.

ذكر الآية الرابعة عشرة: قوله تعالى "فذرهم وما يفترون"، فيه قولان: الأول أنه اقتضى ترك قتال المشركين فهو منسوخ بآية السيف، والثاني أنه تهديد ووعيد فهو محكم


He says that Qataada and As-Suddi said they were abrogated by the sword verse. But Mujaahid said the meaning is a style of threat, such as in

And that makes them not abrogated. Ibn Al-Jawzi agrees and so does Dr. Mustafa Zayd. Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi says that it's the Jizya verse, 9:29 that abrogated 6:70. Also agreeing with this rationale are Abu-Abdillah Shu`la in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, and Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris on page 76 of his presentation of Shu`la's book.

It's not so, IMHO. Verses 6:70 and 6:91 are commands, not threat constructs. They are not abrogated for the same reasons we identified previously in this topic. The sword verse did not abrogate anything. It simply orders fighting back the combatant polytheist after the grace period of four months given to them after the expiration of the non-aggression treaty with them, which 9:1 said should not be renewed.

Al-Ghaali reports in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 229-232, that in addition to Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Salaama, Ibn Al-Baarizi and Qataada all said that 6:70, 6:91 and

were abrogated by the sword verse. Ibn Al`Arabi said that 6:70 and 6:91 were abrogated by the fight verses. Al-Qurtubi said that 6:106 was abrogated. Ar-Raazi disagrees. Al-Ghaali also rejects the abrogation claims.

Who said what:
6:70:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Qataada, As-Suddi,
Ibn Al`Arabi (he said the abrogating are the fight verses),
At-Tabari (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Abul-Qaasim (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi, Ibn Salaama (they said the abrogating was 9:29),
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
The majority, according to An-Nahhaas,
Mujaahid,
An-Nahhaas,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Makki (leaning),
Ar-Raazi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Muhammad ibn Al-Mutahhar (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris.

6:91:
For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Qataada, As-Suddi,
Ibn Al`Arabi (he said the abrogating are the fight verses),
At-Tabari (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
Ibn Katheer (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris.

6:106-107:
For:
Ibn Abbaas, Qataada,
Al-Qurtubi,
Ibn Salaama,
Ibn Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Ar-Raazi,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

6:112:
For:
Qataada, As-Suddi.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (leaning),
Ibn Katheer (implied, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Aş-Şa`di,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

6:135:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Qataada, As-Suddi,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
As-Suyooti (in his book المصفى بأهل الرسوخ في علم الناسخ والمنسوخ according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

6:137:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Qataada, As-Suddi,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Mujaahid,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2010, 04:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Three more verses in Chapter 6 were claimed abrogated by the sword verse, said Ibn Al-Jawzi. These are,

And


Here is what he wrote about them,

ذكر الآية السابعة: قوله تعالى "فمن أبصر فلنفسه ومن عمي فعليها وما أنا عليكم بحفيظ". فيه قولان: الأول أن هذه الآية تتضمن ترك قتال الكفار ثم نسخت بآية السيف. والثاني أن المعنى لست رقيبا عليكم أحصي أعمالكم فهي على هذا محكمة.

ذكر الآية الثامنة: قوله تعالى "وأعرض عن المشركين"، روى علي بن أبي طلحة عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال هذا ونحوه مما أمر الله المؤمنين بالعفو عن المشركين فإنه نسخ بقوله "فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم".

ذكر الآية التاسعة: قوله تعالى "وما جعلناك عليهم حفيظا وما أنت عليهم بوكيل"، قال ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما نسخ بآية السيف. وعلى ما ذكرنا فنظائرها تكون محكمة


He said that Ibn Abbaas said that 6:106-107 were abrogated by the sword verse. Ibn Al-Jawzi disagrees about 6:107.

Al-Jabri says that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi was one for this claim. Al-Jabri rejects it. He has a different perspective on 6:104 and calls it unabrogatable. He says in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 123, that 6:104 teaches us taking responsibility for our own beliefs and actions. Even the Prophet (PBUH) himself cannot protect from harm those who do not follow guidance.

On page 124, he also rejects the claim about 6:106. He cites what psychologists have discovered about the effect of bad company. He says that's what 6:106 says (as well as 6:70 and 7:180, both also claimed abrogated by the sword verse). He says the majority rejected those claims.

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

Against:
The majority (per Al-Jabri),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2010, 04:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

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

was claimed abrogated by the sword verse. He quickly dismisses that, writing,

ذكر الآية العاشرة: قوله تعالى "ولا تسبوا الذين يدعون من دون الله فيسبوا الله عدوا بغير علم". قال المفسرون هذه نسخت بتنبيه الخطاب في آية السيف، لأنها تضمنت الأمر بقتلهم والقتل أشنع من السب. ولا أرى هذه الآية منسوخة، بل يكره للإنسان أن يتعرض بما يوجب ذكر معبوده بسوء أو بنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم


The argument used for the abrogation claim by some exegetes that the sword verse orders fighting and fighting is worse than slandering. Poor logic.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd elaborated and attributed that opinion to Ibn Salaama. Wait till you hear what he said, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, pages 165-166, quoted by Dr. Zayd:

نهاهم الله تعالى عن سب المشركين بما ظاهره الإحكام وباطنه منسوخ؛ لأن الله تعالى أمر بقتلهم، والسب يدخل في جنب القتل، وهو أغلظ وأشنع. نسخ ذلك بآية السيف

Translation: God, may He be exalted, forbade them to insult the polytheists with what appears to be fixed (not abrogated) but intrinsically abrogated. Because God, may He be exalted, ordered killing them, and insult gets on the side of killing, and it is harder and more abhorrent. That was abrogated by the sword verse.

To begin with, God's order in 6:108 was not to forbid insulting the polytheists; it is to not insult their gods. How is that part and parcel of killing them? One can insult other people's beliefs without killing them and can kill them without ever insulting their faith! Thus, even if we concede that the sword verse orders the killing of all polytheists (!), verse 6:108 orders Muslims to never insult other people's gods.

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Salaama,
Al-Khazraji.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

Consequences:
In his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 96, Al-Jabri writes that accepting this claim means allowing open animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims, something which will lead to a war of words, likely followed by a war of armies.

Rejecting this claim, on the other hand, means that Muslims always observe courtesy with all people, thus properly represent Islam, instead of repulse people away from it.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2010, 22:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports a few more claims of abrogation by the sword verse,

And


Here is what he writes about those,

ذكر الآية السابعة عشرة: قوله تعالى "انتظروا إنا منتظرون". للمفسرين فيها قولان: الأول انها اقتضت الأمر بالكف عن قتالهم وذلك منسوخ بآية السيف، والثاني أن المراد بها التهديد فهي محكمة وهي الصحيح.

ذكر الآية الثامنة عشرة: قوله تعالى "لست منهم في شيء". للمفسرين في معناه ثلاثة أقوال: الأول لست من قتالهم في شيء ثم نسخ بآية السيف، قاله السدي. والثاني ليس إليك شيء من أمرهم قال ابن قتيبة، والثالث أنت بريء منهم وهم منك براء إنما أمرهم إلى الله سبحانه في الجزاء فعلى هذين القولين الآية محكمة.

باب ذكر الآيات اللواتي أدعي عليهن النسخ في سورة الأعراف. ذكر الآية الأولى: قوله تعالى "وذروا الذين يلحدون في أسمائه"، قال ابن زيد نسخها الأمر بالقتال، وقال غيره هذا تهديد لهم وهذا لا ينسخ


He dismisses the claim about 6:158 using the "threat argument". He reports that there are two interpretations for 6:149 that refute the abrogation claim about it, but one other that supports it, advocated by As-Suddi. He also says that the same "threat argument" has been used to refute the abrogation claim of 7:180 (a claim made by Ibn Zayd), but doesn't say whether he agrees.

Once again, I disagree about the abrogation claim of any verse by the sword verse for the reasons I detailed earlier in this topic.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 1, pages 429-431 (Items 603-605), rejects this claim and shows that there are many interpretations have been offered for 6:159. Mujaahid, Qataada and Ad-Dhahhaak all said that it refers to the Jews and the Christians. I beg to differ, since the wording is general. Abu-Hurayra said it refers to innovators and deviants of the Muslim community. That makes more sense and At-Tabari agrees.

Zayd also said that scholars differed on what the phrase "You have nothing to do with them" means. Abul-Aħwaş and Maalik ibn Maghool said it means "You are absolved from them." Umm Salama, may God have been pleased with her, implied likewise and so did Amr ibn Qays.

Lastly, At-Tabari said that he finds no impossibility of both verses being in effect together and that invalidates the call for abrogation.

Who said what:
6:158:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
As-Suddi (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Mujaahid and Qataada (implied, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, wrote Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Salaama (according to Dr. Al-Husayni, but I think he's mistaken; see Ibn Salaama's الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 62),
As-Suyooti (in his book المصفى according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

6:159:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ad-Dhahhaak (according to Shu`la),
As-Suddi.

Against:
Mujaahid, Ad-Dhahhaak and Qataada (implied),
Umm Salama, Abul-Aħwaş, Maalik ibn Maghool and Amr ibn Qays (implied),
Ibn Qateeba,
Ibn Jareer At-Tabari,
An-Nahhaas, Makki,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implied),
Aş-Şa`di (leaning),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

7:180:
For:
Ibn Zayd.

Against:
At-Tabari (quoted from his exegesis by Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (implied),
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 03:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Another claim Ibn Al-Jawzi quickly dismisses is that this verse

was abrogated by the sword verse. He writes,

ذكر الآية الثانية: قوله تعالى "وأملي لهم إن كيدي متين". قال المفسرون المراد بكيده مجازاة أهل الكبد والمكر، وهذه خبر فهي محكمة. وقد ذهب من قل علمه من منتحلي التفسير إلى أن معنى الآية الأمر للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بمشاركتهم قال ونسخ معناها بآية السيف، وهذا قول لا يلتفت إليه


Who said what:
For:
Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 63.

Against:
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 03:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that the famous verse,

was claimed abrogated by the sword verse, by Ibn Zayd. Here is what Ibn Al-Jawzi wrote about it,

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "خذ العفو وأمر بالعرف وأعرض عن الجاهلين" العفو الميسور وفي الذي أمر بأخذ العفو ثلاثة أقوال: القول الأول أخلاق الناس، قاله ابن عمرو وابن الزبير والحسن ومجاهد، فعلى هذا يكون المعنى اقبل الميسور من أخلاق الناس ولا تستقص عليهم فتظهر منهم البغضاء فعلى هذا هو محكم. والقول الثاني أنه المال، ثم فيه قولان: الأول أن المراد بعفو المال الزكاة، قاله مجاهد في رواية الضحاك، الثاني أنها صدقة كانت تؤخذ قبل فرض الزكاة ثم نسخت بالزكاة، روى عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال القاسم وسالم العفو شيء في المال سوى الزكاة وهو فضل المال ما كان عن ظهر غنى. والقول الثالث أن المراد به مساهلة المشركين والعفو عنهم ثم نسخ بآية السيف، قاله ابن زيد. وقوله "وأعرض عن الجاهلين" فيهم قولان: الأول أنهم المشركون أمر بالإعراض عنهم ثم نسخ ذلك بآية السيف، والثاني أنه عام فيمن جهل أمر بصيانة النفس عن مقابلتهم على سفههم وأن واجب الإنكار عليهم وعلى هذا تكون الآية محكمة وهو الصحيح


It is particularly strange that a verse described by a number of scholars as containing the essence of Islam would be claimed by others abrogated!

As-Suyooti says in his book الإتقان في علوم القرآن that some people quoted this verse as the only verse whose beginning and end are abrogated but its middle wasn't! One of those people were Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani. In the same sentence, he described 7:199 as a verse that "combined all the beautiful manners and etiquette" and that "its beginning and end were abrogated". Talk about inconsistency!

Al-Jabri's comment on this claim is,

"This verse, for the life in me, is the combiner of the noblest manners, and the evidence of a mature society. Those who claim it was abrogated have abrogated their minds!"

Dr. Mustafa Zayd rejects this claim as well. He agrees with An-Nahhaas that the ignorant may include fellow Muslims.

Ironically, Ibn Salaama, who supports this claim in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 63, cites a hadeeth where Gabriel (PBUH) visits the Prophet (PBUH) and says to him, "I've brought you the noblest of character," then he revealed to him 7:199. The Prophet (PBUH) then asked him what it meant. Gabriel answered, "Reach out to those who cut you off, give to those who deprive you and pardon those who wronged you!"

If Gabriel calls 7:199 "the noblest of character", does Ibn Salaama suggest that noble character is no longer valid, but forcing Islam on non-Muslims is the new valid?!

Who said what:
For:
Ibn Abbaas (according to Dr. Al-Husayni),
Ibn Zayd,
Al-Mansoor Billah, As-Suddi, Ad-Dhahhaak and Abu-Bakr Al-Aşamm (according to Aş-Şa`di),
Aş-Şa`di,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (according to Al-Jabri),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
The majority, according to Al-Khazraji,
Abdullah ibn Az-Zubayr (implied, quoted by Al-Jabri),
An-Nahhaas,
Makki (implied),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Husaam Al-Ghaali?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2010, 04:53 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
The list goes on. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports that this verse,

was among those claimed abrogated by the sword verse. This is what he wrote,

ذكر الآية الثالثة: قوله تعالى "وإذا رأيت الذين يخوضون في آياتنا فأعرض عنهم". المراد بهذا الخوض الخوض بالتكذيب، ويشبه أن يكون الإعراض المذكور ههنا منسوخة بآية السيف


Ibn Al-Jawzi thinks it is but does not comment further.

This is similar to the argument in the abrogation claim of 4:43 about praying while drunk. There is no conflict between the more sweeping ruling and the special-circumstance ruling. Moreover, in the case of the sword verse, the ruling is in fact not sweeping.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 06 Dec 2019, 01:20

All times are UTC

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