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
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2013, 14:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 22 in the footnotes, states that the most "famous" sword verse is 9:36, not 9:5,

I did read some references to 9:36 as the sword verse, but the references to 9:5 as the sword verse are much more.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 02:22 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1833
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
Dr. M. Saalih Ali Mustafa, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم - مفهومه وتاريخه ودعاواه, page 22 in the footnotes, states that the most "famous" sword verse is 9:36, not 9:5,

I did read some references to 9:36 as the sword verse, but the references to 9:5 as the sword verse are much more.

Noting that the word "sword" does not appear in either verse. In fact, it does not appear in the Quran at all.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5, 2:191 or 2:193 abrogate 2:191?
PostPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 19:23 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
According to Al-Ghaali, in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 207-211, verse 2:191 was claimed abrogated by the sword verse,

In his book, صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, pages 109-111, Abu-Abdillah Shu`la mentions that Ibn Abbaas, Mujaahid, Taawoos and others have rejected this claim and that Ibn Abbaas proved it by quoting an authentic hadeeth, reported by Al-Bukhaari, in which the Prophet (PBUH) said on the day of conquest of Mecca, "Verily, this town is sacrosanct. God, may He be esteemed and prominent, has sanctified it. Fighting in it was never allowed in it for anybody before me and it was allowed for me for an hour and is sacrosanct by the sanctity of God, may He be esteemed and prominent" (my translation). It was narrated by Ibn Abbaas and reported and rated authentic by Al-Bukhaari, Muslim, An-Nasaa'i and Al-Albaani.

I find it really strange that none of the scholars, other than Shu`la, who discussed this claim have mentioned that Ibn Abbaas was against it and offered a proof.

Ibn Abbaas's rationalization was that the allowance of fighting in Mecca was an exception specific to the Prophet (PBUH) and not an abrogation. Which implies that Ibn Abbaas did not believe that exceptions are a form of naskh. But, in other narrations about other cases, he did use the words "نسخ واستثنى" (updated and excepted).

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 22:25 
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, pages 136-137, rejects the claim that
was abrogated by the fighting verse. He cites several verses that confirm the meaning of 6:66 and mentions this one:

It is interesting that no other scholar has addressed this particular verse. I suppose it's because it's similarly worded as
which they addressed.

But for the completion of this research, I need to include 11:86 in the list of verses talked about in the context of being abrogated by the sword verse.

Who said what:
For:
None.

Against:
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 10 Oct 2013, 20:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 163, confuses what Abu-Abdillah Shu`la considered abrogated by the sword verse in Chapter 33. Faaris thought that Shu`la was referring to

but Shu`la quoted
which we covered earlier.

Dr. Faaris then refers the reader, in the footnotes, to Ibn Salaama, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, pages 257-258. And then says that Al-Qurtubi's exegesis implies no abrogation. I don't know if these two gentlemen were talking about 33:48 or about 33:1. I suspect they were talking about 33:48, since nobody talked about 33:1 in the context of abrogation, as far as I know.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 24 Nov 2013, 21:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
If I did not read, with my own eyes, what Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani wrote in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 163-167, I could have sworn it was a mean attack on Islam by Islamophobes!

Al-Hamdaani starts Part 7 of his book entitled "Commanding proselytizing before fighting, then abrogating that!" by citing a hadeeth in which the Prophet (PBUH) would counsel the commander of a battle to "be conscious of God, be good to fellow Muslims, do not betray, do not mutilate, do not kill children, and finally to invite the enemy to three things and if they accept any of them then he should accept that and not fight them."

The hadeeth is narrated by Burayda. Al-Hamdaani does not authenticate it, nor does Zakariya `Umayraat, the verifier of the book. Furthermore, Al-Hamdaani cuts the hadeeth short and does not mention what these three things are that the Prophet (PBUH) specified!

So, I decided to look for this hadeeth myself. It seems an authentic one, reported by Abu-Daawood, Muslim and Al-Albaani. The three things the Prophet (PBUH) mentioned are sequential: (1) to accept Islam, (2) if they do then they are called to migrate to Medina and (3) if they do not accept Islam then they are to pay Jizya (defense tax). In the case of migration, they may stay at home but then they do not share in war booty unless they join Muslims in battle.

So, this hadeeth, if we concede its authenticity, establishes the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH) regarding conquered peoples. They do not have to become Muslim, even though they are now under the rule of Muslims. The Jizya is the tax they need to pay as Muslims pay Zakah.

Imaam Maalik ibn Anas ruled therefore that people cannot be fought before they are called to Islam first. Most scholars, however, Al-Hamdaani alleges, disagreed! He said that Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibrahim An-Nakh`i, Yahya ibn Sa`eed, Al-Layth ibn Sa`d, Ash-Shaafi`i, Sufyaan, Abu-Haneefa, Ibn Hanbal all said the hadeeth above is abrogated and it is no longer necessary to call people to Islam before fighting them!

But Ash-Shafii`i and Abu-Thawr both qualified their ruling for people who never heard of Islam: they should be invited to it first. Ibn Al-Munzhir agreed.

Al-Hamdaani then cites hadeeths he says are authentic where the Prophet (PBUH) has invaded people without calling them to Islam, such as Banu Al-Mustaliq and Khaybar. But he neglects to mention the extenuating circumstances of both battles: both peoples betrayed the Prophet (PBUH) and breeched their treaty with him and backed up the polytheists of Mecca against him!

Is that a detail important enough to mention?

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 25 Nov 2013, 19:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
If I did not read, with my own eyes, what Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani wrote in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 163-167, I could have sworn it was a mean attack on Islam by Islamophobes!

If that wasn't enough smearing of Islam and the Prophet (PBUH), Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani reports more on pages 163-164 of his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار under the title "Killing women and children of polytheists and the differing about that!"

He starts with a hadeeth which he says has been authenticated by both Al-Bukhaari and Muslim, in which the Prophet (PBUH) was asked about women and children staying in their homes and becoming victims of a battle. His reply was "they are of them." This hadeeth was narrated by Aş-Şa`b ibn Juthaama.

Al-Hamdaani reports that a number of scholars whom he did not name have claimed that this hadeeth abrogates the hadeeth we mentioned in the previous post, narrated by Burayda. Thus, they ruled that killing women and children in war has become allowed after being forbidden!

But those scholars missed the question asked of the Prophet (PBUH)! He was not asked about premeditated or targeted killing; he was asked about accidental killing - what we today call collateral damage. The answer alleged to the Prophet (PBUH) does not mean he okayed murder; it means then as it means now that war will lead to casualties of the warrior's own people.

And we can see this more clearly in two more hadeeths that Al-Hamdaani reports. The first one is reported by Al-Aswad ibn Saree` in which the Prophet (PBUH) was startled by news that children of the enemy were killed in battle. He said, "Hear ye! Do not kill children! Hear ye! Do not kill children!"

The second hadeeth was narrated by Ħanzhala Al-Kaatib in which the Prophet (PBUH) encountered a corpse of a woman in battle. He got upset and asked, "Was she fighting? Was she in front? Go tell Khaalid (head warrior) not to kill children or weaklings!"

So, if common sense and human decency will not succeed in curbing some people's appetite for blood, these hadeeths should!

I'm glad that Al-Hamdaani near the end of that article explained what the issue was with the Prophet's reply in Ibn Juthaama's narration. He quoted Ash-Shaafi`i rejecting the notion that killing of enemy women and children was ever allowed. He explained what the Prophet (PBUH) said as follows. Verse 4:92,

set rules for punitive damages to accidental death victim families. Ash-Shaafi`i argued that the categories mentioned in 4:92 do not include polytheist women and children victims of battle. Thus, Muslims do not have to compensate their families as 4:92 requires. I agree that this is the most likely interpretation of the Prophet's reply, given his repeated emphasis in other hadeeths about sparing women and children.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 18:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4520
Location: USA
Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy, in his book منهج القرآن في تطوير المجتمع, page 95-98, refutes a notion that sparked several abrogation claims by verse 9:5. That notion is that the attitude conveyed by,

which calls for non-interference with the affairs of other people, has been abrogated by the sword verse. Al-Bahiyy refutes that by explaining that the fight is with those who are militant or treacherous, not with those who mind their own business. That should've been obvious to everyone, but alas, it wasn't.

Al-Bahiyy thought process on the sword verse, however, seems inconsistent. At the end of the book, pages 240-241, I got the impression that he calls for a permanent war against all polytheists and materialists!

_________________
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


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, 12:38

All times are UTC

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