> Discussing issue of Abrogation

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

only the people of heresy have rejected the saying and ayaah of Allah on abrogation. To deny it is as much of an insanity as those who deny the ruling of hijaab.

Salam,

Well, let us then discuss the Ayaah of Allah that discusses "abrogation". I will give you one explanation and please provide me your explanation for this verse. We will discuss the issue with an open mind with all the supporting arguements.

“Any message which We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better one. Dost thou not know that God has power to will anything?” (2: 106)

The principle laid down in this passage is relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Quran. The word Ayah (message) occurring in this context is also used to denote a “verse” of the Quran (because every one of these verses contains a message). Ayah also means revelation, miracle, example, sign etc. Now, if we consider the above verse, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign, revelation) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:

1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another it will still be part of the Quran thus could never be forgotten.

2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for Allah to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!

3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in above verse is meant to be a miracle, an example, or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all the meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse:

"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayahs (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders, proclaiming: ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayahs they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." – (43: 46-48)

But a further look at the use of the substitution of Ayah in place of another will show that it can also mean substitution of one scripture in place of another. Look at this verse:

"When We substitute one Ayah in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know" - (16: 101)

Here also the substitution spoken can not one verse in the Quran with another verse. Here the substitution is concerned with the substitution of one Scripture in place of another.

This is confirmed at another place:

"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." – (5: 48)

Here, the words "superseding them." confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran. But the key to the meaning of the verse 16:101 lies in the words “they say: you made this up”.

Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up"? And but why? For sure it cannot be his followers; his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up". It has to be those who do not believe in him which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran.

What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! If this accusation is from the Jews and Christians we must then ask, are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another. But if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.

These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scriptures.

Take one example of verses alleged to have been abrogated. They are verses dealing with prohibition against liquor or intoxicants. This prohibition is given in three degrees. The first stage, God says that liquor contains more harm than good, but silent about total prohibition. The second stage, God prohibits us from praying while in a state of drunkenness, still silent on banning it. The final stage is when it is prohibited totally.

It would be wrong for us to say that verses 5:90-91 which bring the total ban against liquor have abrogated verses 2:219 and 4:43. Such an interpretation shows that we fail to take into consideration this principle of easy practicability. God has made the religion of Islam easy for mankind to practice. Because God, being merciful to his creatures does not want to overburden men. The principle of easy practicability teaches us two things. Firstly it gives us a wise strategy to deal with new converts to Islam who are heavy drunkards. This does not mean, of course, that those who can give up liquor at once cannot do so. But, generally, most people do not possess such strong will power to accomplish that. Most people need time; hence this flexibility is given by God to them. Secondly, this principle teaches us the importance of applying the principle of easy practicability while formulating rules and regulations.

Wassalam

[salamfromrom]

Copy+Paste at it's very finest :P Will you kindly post the author so we all know who wrote that piece bro?

salam

[salman]

brother optimist, your academic fraud is not based upon any knowledge and even a very low level of layperson can spot it. the reason, why I do not want to respond to you is simple:
1) it is not worth time
2) time and time again, I have asked you that whenever you introduce your falsehood understanding, bring me some people of knowledge from pious predecessors who support your understanding. However, you have never been able to do so and instead you put forward your own understanding or take from those who are heretics and are not qualified to interpret the Qur'an.

lastly, I am allowing this falsehood to remain so that others can learn how to answer such claims and with the hope that may Allah open your heart to truth, ameen.

[al-boriqee]

When I get a chance, I will blast this to the twilight zone linguistically, biographically if possible, and then scholastically from what the people of understanding (fuqaha) have said .

Inshallah

Asalamu alaikum

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

lastly, I am allowing this falsehood to remain so that others can learn how to answer such claims and with the hope that may Allah open your heart to truth, ameen.

Salam,

Actually I came online expecting that my post is deleted. I appreciate your decision. This is how we learn.

Alhamdulillah always

wassalam

---------- Post added at 11:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 AM ----------

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Copy+Paste at it's very finest

Salam,

I did not make a copy paste as you assume. But I admit, whatever I have written above is not my finding. But before I tell you from where I have read this, why don't you address the points mentioned in the article?

wassalam

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

When I get a chance, I will blast this to the twilight zone linguistically, biographically if possible, and then scholastically from what the people of understanding (fuqaha) have said .

Inshallah

Asalamu alaikum

Salam,

Can I tell you some thing in a light sense? Please just take it in this way. People say confidence is good, but overconfidence is not good. I look forward to read your comments.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

Can I tell you some thing in a light sense? Please just take it in this way. People say confidence is good, but overconfidence is not good. I look forward to read your comments.

Wassalam

Just understand that my over confidence is rooted in the ayaa

Nay, We fling the truth against the falsehood , so it destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished. 21:18

[al-boriqee]

The Theory of Allah's Act of Abrogation is supported by the Ayaah of Allah that no Muslims needs anything else to confirm such a theory which is

"Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is Able to do all things? " (2:106)

and

"And when We change a Verse (of the Qur'ân) in place of another – and Allâh knows best what He sends down – they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam]) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not. " (16:101)

However, as for those whose hearts conceal a sickness, the words of Allah are not enough. So now we have to expand on the subject further

Well, let us then discuss the Ayaah of Allah that discusses "abrogation". I will give you one explanation and please provide me your explanation for this verse. We will discuss the issue with an open mind with all the supporting arguements.

Discussing issues with an "open mind" comes into play when two parties from among the believers have with them an argument, neither of which is based on foundational beliefs of Islam. For example, if You and I were to disagree on the issue of vegan ethics, then on such a matter could we converse with an open mind because neither has Allah, nor His Messenger ruled with clarity for either side. Then, the issue of open minded discussion comes into play.

On the other hand, when we have a portion of the muslims who contend with the very ayaah of Allah, then my friend all open minded discussion is over because the Muslim is not to "push aside" the theory of Allah in order to understand the kufr of other than His theory that is being adopted by a Muslim. Open minded discussions come into play when there is a lack of clear ruling of Allah or His messenger or even from the judgments of the salaf and not when there is a clear ruling from among them because onc they have ruled over a matter, it is not up to us to "investigate" or "critique what was given to us, rather since our religion is based on submission, then likewise are hearts are in agreement with whatever decision Allah has made for us.

“Any message which We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better one. Dost thou not know that God has power to will anything?” (2: 106)

The principle laid down in this passage is relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Quran

This is baseless from several angles

1. There is nothing in the verse that acts as a qualifier of what it is abrogating. The arabic reads

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ

the arabic harf "maa" entails amm in the language which connotates "whatever" and there is nothing else brought in the verse that neutralizes it to "the bible". If Allah would have intended the "biblical" revelations, He would have said that, but from the principles of the Qur'anic principle that "We have revealed it an Arabic Qur'an" entails that He would have clearly pointed out this idea IF this is what He intended. Why. Because the verse "We have revealed an arabic Qur'an" does not mean a Quran that is in arabic, rather the term "araba" used in it, from its base form entails that it is a speech that is so clear, that none of its words can be miscontrued with meanings other than what it obviously depicts.

The word Ayah (message) occurring in this context is also used to denote a “verse” of the Quran (because every one of these verses contains a message). Ayah also means revelation, miracle, example, sign etc. Now, if we consider the above verse, we can easily spot that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign, revelation) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:

2. secondly, the term "ayaatin" again, denotes generality and there is nothing that quarantines its meaning to the "bible" only.

3. There are actual accounts of the prophetic mission (seerah) overall, several accounts that explicitly and unabashedly demonstrate the actuality of nasikh wa mansookh in the time of the prophet.

4. Lastly, the companions of the messenger of Allah by default of knowing that Allah abrogated other verses for others in the Qur'an IN THEIR LIVES, and their testimony to this fact is enough of a demonstration to prove the absurdity of the disbelief of those who rejected the ayaah of Allah on abrogation.

1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran.

that is only a demonstration of the author's ignorance. the term forgotten entails inapplicability as well as erasing.

How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten?

Easy, Because it is Allah's Qur'an. It is He qho preserves it in our hearts and it is He who can lift it up. A demonstration of this is during the signs of the last day, Allah will raise up the Qur'an, so in the morning, all who knew the Qur'an will be bereft of it. In other words they will no longer be hufaadh of the Qur'an because Allah erased it from their hearts.

The Qur'an is the property of Allah and He does with it whatever He wishes and it is not up to us what Allah can or can;t do with the His Own Book.

For even if the verse was invalidated by another it will still be part of the Quran thus could never be forgotten.

This is another demonstration of the author's ignorance.

In the shariah, there are three forms of naaskh

1. abrogation of the ruling along with the recitation

An example of this abrogation is when Aisha radhiyallahu anha said that
"It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten sucklings (of a baby with a women) made marriage unlawful (i.e. the baby would be considered her foster child). This was later abrogated by five sucklings.

2. abrogation of the ruling but NOT the recitation

an example of this type of abrogation is the verse prescribing the waiting period of one year for the widow. Even though this ruling does not apply any more because it was abrogated by the other verse reducing it to the 4 months and ten days, it is still recited which is
"And those of you who die and leave behind wives should bequeath for their wives a year's maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they (wives) leave, there is no sin on you for that which they do of themselves, provided it is honourable (e.g. lawful marriage). And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. " (2:240)

3. abrogation of the recitation but NOT the ruling

an example of this type of abrogation was the ayaah of ar-rajm (stoning) the adulterer. The Messenger practiced stoning several times, so did the caliphs of Islam, and so did the dynasties after the khulafa even though the actual ayaah was abrogated from being recited. So its recitation is not present anymore but its ruling still applies.

2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for Allah to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!

Again, another demonstration of ignorance, because the phrasal clause "We replace it with something equal to it" means that it is the mufeeda (benefit) that is equal to the mufeeda of the one abrogated, and it does not mean the actual ruling itself is replaced by something identical.

3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in above verse is meant to be a miracle, an example, or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all the meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

yeah, that is understood as part of our doctrine, but we are more complete than you, because we encompass the WHOLE of the meaning of ayaah, and we do not constrict the meaning of ayaah as you have done above. There is nothing in the arabic that connotates a restriction that you are placing upon it.
The ummah has agreed that the ayaah comes in two forms
1. general naaskh
2. specific naaskh

everything you mentioned above pertains to its general form of abrogation. However, that is not the subject of this rejection of yours. The subject that we are concerned with is you rejection of the specific naaskh in which which we have a plethora of reports from the companions of how they used to recite versus and were then told were abrogated, or who explained that some of the rulings in the Qur'an have been abrogated by others. This historical fact proves that the concept of abrogation was deeply rooted and understood by the expansive understanding of the companions.

Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse:

"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayahs (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders, proclaiming: ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayahs they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." – (43: 46-48)

Again, all of this is baseless within our discussion, because our sunni doctrine entails all of this. This is where we agree on and so there is no need to continue with what we agree on. The focus of our discussion is concerning your rejection of the generality of the ayaah as a whole and quarantine it within your restrictive meaning that no one has preceded you in except for two individuals which will be mentioned later on inshallah

Infact, I will delete the rest of your argument as it has nothing to do with the topic of your rejection, because we already understand that the qur'an abrogated previous scriptures. The discussion is not about that, but how you illegitimately restricted the ayaah that no one has ever restricted before from among the people of Islam.

next

These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scriptures.

Again, Allah in that phrasal clause "you have made it up" which was the allegation of the kuffar, are true, and it is speaking about the fact of how the Qur'an abrogated their messages.

But what does that have to do with Allah abrogating this rule

And those of you who die and leave behind wives should bequeath for their wives a year's maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they (wives) leave, there is no sin on you for that which they do of themselves, provided it is honourable (e.g. lawful marriage). And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. (2:240)

with this one

And those of you who die and leave wives behind them, they (the wives) shall wait (as regards their marriage) for four months and ten days, then when they have fulfilled their term, there is no sin on you if they (the wives) dispose of themselves in a just and honourable manner (i.e. they can marry). And Allâh is Well-Acquainted with what you do. (2:234)

IF what you say is true, Then which ruling is prescribed for Muslims, the first, or the second.

Take one example of verses alleged to have been abrogated. They are verses dealing with prohibition against liquor or intoxicants. This prohibition is given in three degrees. The first stage, God says that liquor contains more harm than good, but silent about total prohibition. The second stage, God prohibits us from praying while in a state of drunkenness, still silent on banning it. The final stage is when it is prohibited totally.

This phenomenon is called progression of abrogation.

It would be wrong for us to say that verses 5:90-91 which bring the total ban against liquor have abrogated verses 2:219 and 4:43. Such an interpretation shows that we fail to take into consideration this principle of easy practicability.

What the hell is that. There is nothing called "the principle of easy practicability". This is soemthing that authored just blurted out of his or her neck without any research whatsoever.

However, for argument's sake, let us agree to this made up theory of the principle of easy practicability that the author invented for themselves.

What does that have to do with the fact that Allah
1. allowed it
2. then restricted it
3. then prohibited it.

No matter how you slice it and dice it, that is called abrogation.

this argument is a classical example of how revisionist are clearly willing to go at lengths to clutch at straws and bring forth straw man arguments, and in the process make themselves look like fools (Im commenting on those people whom you got this material from, not you personally) in order to bring forth their awkward revisionist ideas.

God has made the religion of Islam easy for mankind to practice

.thats agreed upon, but what does that have to do with abrogation.

Because God, being merciful to his creatures does not want to overburden men. The principle of easy practicability teaches us two things. Firstly it gives us a wise strategy to deal with new converts to Islam who are heavy drunkards. This does not mean, of course, that those who can give up liquor at once cannot do so. But, generally, most people do not possess such strong will power to accomplish that. Most people need time; hence this flexibility is given by God to them. Secondly, this principle teaches us the importance of applying the principle of easy practicability while formulating rules and regulations.

this is not a shariah principle and there is no scholar on the planet that has ever advocated this principle.

Islam is easy, that does not mean the negation of following on the mere premise of ease. That is because by default, the shariah itself is easy to follow. If someone has a drinking problem, then the mufti is obliged to consider his case and give a ruling specifically for such a person, but we are not to run around and en masse advocate that its okay to not do what is required of you to do, you have several years before you are actually required to do the actions of Islam.

We cannot say that since the companions were not obligated to pray until the 14th year, then that means we have 14 years before the obligation of prayer is upon us under this invented principle for "easy practicability' that no one has ever advocated in the 14 centuries of islam

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

This is baseless from several angles

1. There is nothing in the verse that acts as a qualifier of what it is abrogating. The arabic reads

مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ

the arabic harf "maa" entails amm in the language which connotates "whatever" and there is nothing else brought in the verse that neutralizes it to "the bible". If Allah would have intended the "biblical" revelations, He would have said that, but from the principles of the Qur'anic principle that "We have revealed it an Arabic Qur'an" entails that He would have clearly pointed out this idea IF this is what He intended. Why. Because the verse "We have revealed an arabic Qur'an" does not mean a Quran that is in arabic, rather the term "araba" used in it, from its base form entails that it is a speech that is so clear, that none of its words can be miscontrued with meanings other than what it obviously depicts.

Salam,

Well, brother, do you have a case that only what is stated in the Quran are “Ayaat” and only the Quran is the "Kitab" of Allah? You are getting into wrong conclusion due your inclination (unintentional) to consider only the verses of the Quran as “Ayaat” of Allah. Let me quote first the verse you rely on to prove abrogation and then I will quote for you some verses from Quran to clarify the point.

"When We substitute one Ayah in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know" - (16: 101)

Now look at some of the verses in the Quran that discuss previous scriptures.

O ye who believe! believe in God and His Messenger and in the Book which He had revealed to His Messenger, and the Book which He revealed before it. (containing Ayaat) (4:136)
وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ مِنْ قَبْلُ


And We have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book (containing Ayaat) (5:48)
وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; (containing Ayaat) (5:43)
وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein (containing Ayaat). If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (47)
وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنْجِيلِ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَاللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee, ask those who have been reading the Book before thee (containing Ayaat).(10:94)
فَإِنْ كُنْتَ فِي شَكٍّ مِمَّا أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَمِنْ قَبْلِكَ

And say, 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and that which has been revealed to you; (containing Ayaat) and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.' (29:46)
وَقُولُوا آمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَٰهُنَا وَإِلَٰهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Please go through the above verses attentively (Arabic also) and then have a look again the following verse.

"When We substitute one Ayah in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know" - (16: 101)

Again please use your logic and think, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up"? For sure it cannot be Muslims. It has to be the followers of previous scriptures who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran. The Jews and Christians will not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another (i.e, they will not say to the prophet 'you made this up' for 'abrogating' one verse for the other. But if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that he "made it up" himself.

I will answer your other points later

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Brother

all of that was unnecessary because you went off on a tangent that you misconstrued from the basis and therefore I will only address the essential comment that mislead they way you received the information that I posted

Well, brother, do you have a case that only what is stated in the Quran are “Ayaat” and only the Quran is the "Kitab" of Allah? You are getting into wrong conclusion due your inclination (unintentional) to consider only the verses of the Quran as “Ayaat” of Allah. Let me quote first the verse you rely on to prove abrogation and then I will quote for you some verses from Quran to clarify the point.

you misconstrued everything because I did not restrict ayaat for Quran only

I was being general with ayaat to entail every single meaning that it includes including the Quran

this is what makes our view more expansive than your narrower view because we take on all of the grammticaly understood meaning and shariah connotations of ayaat. The only one who has restricted the term "ayaa" is yourself by excluding the Quran or versus therof from the allah's sunnah of abrogation.
That fact that you derived from my speech that I limited ayaat to only quranic versus has only demonstrated that you incorrectly understood my speech above

asalamu alaikum