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 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 18:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
This was claimed by Ibn `Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood, Qataada, and Abul-`Aaliya, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi. The two verses are presented here,

is claimed to have been abrogated by

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2010, 18:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
For:
Ibn `Abbaas, Ibn Mas`ood, Qataada, and Abul-`Aaliya, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi.
An-Nahhaas,
Makki (in one report, according to Dr. Faaris),
Ibn Salaama (according to Dr. Faaris).

Against:
The majority (according to Shu`la),
Makki (in another report),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi (implied, as quoted by Dr. Faaris),
As-Suyooti,
Az-Zurqaani,
Al-Asfahaani,
Muhammad Abduh (implied),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 01:13 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
What is the point of abrogation? Without even discussing the scope of 9:29, the statement in 2:109 says "So pardon and overlook until God delivers His command" so the verse is self-delimiting and would not be contradicted if a later command gave different instructions.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 01:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
What is the point of abrogation? Without even discussing the scope of 9:29, the statement in 2:109 says "So pardon and overlook until God delivers His command" so the verse is self-delimiting and would not be contradicted if a later command gave different instructions.

Which is checklist item number 9 of our validation process.

That said, it is equally important to me that it doesn't pass validation rule #12 either,
Linguistic wrote:
Do the two verses speak of two different circumstances, or two different people? If so, they are complementary and no abrogation can be claimed.

2:109 was revealed when Muslims were not the rulers, they only ruled Medina, while 9:29 was revealed when they were. Two different circumstances and thus require two different rulings.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 21:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
What is the point of abrogation? Without even discussing the scope of 9:29, the statement in 2:109 says "So pardon and overlook until God delivers His command" so the verse is self-delimiting and would not be contradicted if a later command gave different instructions.

That is the exact point made by Shu`la in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 101. He also states that the majority have said 2:109 was not abrogated.

However, Shu`la makes a serious allegation: that when Muslims became strong, "the command of God mentioned in 2:109 was erased!" (My translation and emphasis).

By whom? How does he know that? He doesn't say.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his presentation of Shu`la's book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 102 in the footnotes, says that the book تفسير المنار, authored by Rasheed Ridha and reflecting the opinions of his teacher Imaam Muhammad Abduh, have understood 2:109 to indicate that Muslims, even in their few numbers and inability to fight, were strong because "pardoning is only requested from the powerful."

It appears that they were refuting the rationale for abrogation, which most scholars have used: that Muslims were required to pardon the People of the Book for their ill intentions only because they couldn't fight back. But when they could later, they didn't have to.

I find this argument to be weak. You can chose to pardon even when you cannot fight. The alternative is to be resentful.

I don't quite understand why scholars thought that 2:109 orders pardoning of militant polythesists. It doesn't say that. It says that many of the People of the Book (a different category from polytheists BTW) wish they could persuade Muslims to abandon Islam. Muslims are ordered to let that pass until God brings His decision. That could very well be in the Day of Judgment. Verse 2:109 still applies today. Many of the people of the Book today still try to persuade Muslims to abandon Islam. It failed then and is failing today. Knowing that, a Muslim should forgo such ill intention because it is doomed to fail.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:13 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
It says that many of the People of the Book (a different category from polytheists BTW) wish they could persuade Muslims to abandon Islam. Muslims are ordered to let that pass until God brings His decision. That could very well be in the Day of Judgment.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, mentions in the footnotes of page 102 of his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, that Makki opined that 2:109 is abrogated because, he said, the timing in it is open-ended.

This contradicts the other reports that Makki was against this claim.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 04:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1838
Location: USA
It occurred to me that the condition in

is a conjunction of negations (neither..nor..nor). Taken literally, if someone believes in God but not the day of judgment, or believes in the day of judgment but not in God, the verse does not apply to them. Some may argue that these two statements apply to modern-day jews and christians.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:109?
PostPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4534
Location: USA
Pragmatic wrote:
It occurred to me that the condition in 9:29 is a conjunction of negations (neither..nor..nor). Taken literally, if someone believes in God but not the day of judgment, or believes in the day of judgment but not in God, the verse does not apply to them. Some may argue that these two statements apply to modern-day jews and christians.

I had the same thought a while ago, and would add that it applies to Jews and Christians of its time too. They always professed to believe in God.

Which brings in the interpretation that I've since found more reasonable. The key clause in this verse, IMHO, is its epilogue, "until they give the Jizya, by hand, in humility." That means that the verse is talking about People of the Book under Muslim rule and protection who refuse to pay the Jizya. It is like in modern times when Federal Marshals are empowered by law to collect taxes from people who refuse to pay them, by force of guns if necessary.

It has nothing to do with their being non-Muslim. Jizya is the counterpart of the Zakah (mandatory alms) which Muslims have to pay but non-Muslims don't. Zakah and Jizya are the main revenue for Islamic treasury. 9:29 does not refer to law-abiding non-Muslims. It does not give a Carte Blanche to fight non-Muslims, as many scholars have opined who referred to 9:29 as 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  [ 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 03 Dec 2020, 18:12

All times are UTC

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