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





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Did 9:73 abrogate 2:256?
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2010, 14:28 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 243-244, says that

was abrogated by God by

He says An-Nahhaas said the same thing, but that Ibn Salaama said it was abrogated by the sword verse. Then he says that the majority, e.g., Makki, disagrees because they believe 2:256 was about the people of the Book especially.

Where do I begin? Verse 9:73 orders the Prophet (PBUH) to struggle against the disbelievers and the hypocrites. We know that Muslims cannot initiate hostilities from

Therefore, and since struggle is two-sided, 9:73 means that when they choose to be adversaries to Muslims, Muslims must struggle against them. How is that forcing a religion on them?

See the sword verse topic for why it did not abrogate anything.

Why is 2:256 about the people of the Book only? Where in it does it say that? It is a general principle that applies to all people and can never be abrogated.

Lastly, if 2:256 is about the people of the Book only, we know that some of them are disbelievers, per

Therefore, 9:73 applies to them, hence a case of abrogation cannot be made, even if we follow the majority's reasoning.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Who said what
PostPosted: 09 Aug 2010, 14:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
For:
Sulaymaan ibn Moosa Al-Amawi (quoted by Ibn Salaam),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam (who said 9:73 applies to warring disbelievers only),
Al-Khazraji,
An-Nahhaas.

Against:
Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (implied by his practice),
The majority, according to Makki,
Ash-Sha`bi (implied),
Makki (implied),
Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs (Egypt), who said that the abrogating was claimed to be 9:29.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:73 abrogate 2:256?
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010, 14:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 206-208, says takes the opinion that 2:256 applies to the People of the Book only, to whom the Jizya is applied, but for warring disbelievers, 9:73 abrogates 2:256.

I disagree. The two verses talk about two different things. 2:256 says there shall be no compulsion in religion. Period. 9:73 is not about compulsion in religion, it's about fighting the disbelievers who fight us. It mentions nothing about forcing them into Islam!

Ibn Salaam quoted two narrations that make it clear that 2:256 was not abrogated, yet he opined that it has been! These are:

  1. Ash-Sha`bi narrated that in pre-Islamic era, a woman would vow that if her newborn baby survived, she would make him Jewish. When the same folk accepted Islam, they were determined to change the religion of their Jewish children to Islam. Then 2:256 was revealed.

  2. Wustuq Ar-Roomi was a servant to Umar ibn Al-Khattaab when he asked him to become Muslim but he refused. Then 2:256 was revealed. Umar said to him, "No compulsion in religion. Go wherever you want," and he freed him.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Did 9:73 abrogate 2:256?
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2010, 19:23 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 05 May 2009, 00:16
Posts: 1839
Location: USA
Linguistic wrote:
struggle is two-sided

This is the key point. Linguistically, the verb jahada implies action from both parties.

_________________
To translate is the best way to understand


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Did 9:29 abrogate 2:256?
PostPosted: 20 May 2014, 18:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 04 May 2009, 16:10
Posts: 4558
Location: USA
The Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs in Egypt, said on their official web site that what was claimed abrogating was the Jizya verse,

They dismiss the claim and call those who made it names, but they failed to name them.

They make the excellent argument to prove that unqualified fighting of non-Muslims was never warranted: The Prophet (PBUH) had treaties with the Jews of Medina and the Christians of Taghlib and Najran of Arabia and some of the Levant Christians.

Another excellent argument the Council makes is that the Jizya would have no meaning if the fight against non-Muslims was unqualified. Indeed, that is the contingency of 9:29.

The Council also makes a very important point about the circumstances of revelation of 9:29. It was revealed after the Jews of Media, with whom the Prophet (PBUH) had a peace treaty, breached the treaty and aided the polytheist when they fought the Muslims.

_________________
A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 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 28 Mar 2024, 21:08

All times are UTC

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