> Discussing issue of Abrogation

[optimist]

Salam,

Well, what your comment regarding the underlined part of the following verse? In the following verse "they" means who?

"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)

Thanks in advance for your reply

wassalam

[al-boriqee]

well

specifically for this ayaah, the saba (reason for revelation) of this particular ayaah was addressed against the Mushrikeen. Althought it can be applied to the jews and christians, the reason for this specific verse was directed at the mushriks of Mekka

That was because Allah told them at it was none other than the ruh al-quddus that taught Muhammad (Jibreel) and then directly after that in verse 103 it says

And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him.'' The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur'an) is (in) a clear Arabic tongue

Ibn Katheer mentions
Allah tells us of the weak minds of the idolators, and their lack of faith and conviction. He explains that it is impossible for them to have faith when He has decreed that they are doomed. When they saw that some rulings had been changed by being abrogated


However, as I said, it can apply to the jews and christians. For example

Allah legislated that Muhammad and the Muslims face Baitul-Maqdis for their qiblah
then, Allah legislated through abrogating the first rule by making the Muslims face Mecca for their qiblah.

When that happened, that was the most famous abrogation of all and it was a test of imtihaan for those who had faith and exposed the hypocrisy of those who did not and exposed the jews for what they were.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

well

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

specifically for this ayaah, the saba (reason for revelation) of this particular ayaah was addressed against the Mushrikeen. Althought it can be applied to the jews and christians, the reason for this specific verse was directed at the mushriks of Mekka

Doesn't this fact prove that what is being discussed in this verse is not abrogating one verse in the quran with another verse? The mushriks of Mekka will not care a verse is the Quran is aboraged by another verse in the Quran.

Allah legislated that Muhammad and the Muslims face Baitul-Maqdis for their qiblah then, Allah legislated through abrogating the first rule by making the Muslims face Mecca for their qiblah.

Firstly, the change of Qiblah was no abrogation. There was no Ayaat ordering the Muslims to face Jerusalem. So there is no question of any abrogation any ayaat with another ayaat. Even accepting there was an Ayaat directing Muslims to turn to Jerusalam, it is unnecessary to classify the direction to face Mekkah as abrogating the order to face Jesusalam. It is only to be understood as as command given under certain circumstances was reversed under some other circumstances (for a definite purpose).

Well, there is a verse in the Quran which says that women convicted for adultery should be subjected to house arrest until Allah provides some other solution. It is totally irrelevant to argue that the subsequent rule s abrogated the earlier order. There is no need to argue in this way. The earlier order was pronouced under certain circumstances, and when the time arrived a definte direction was given as promised earlier.

Another instance, Allah takes step by step action to bring prohibition of liquor. Allah could have given direct command in the initial stage itself prohibiting liquor. We all know the reason. Here also there is no need to argue the subsequent orders nullified the earlier ones. In a modern world, in order to prohibit smoking, this is a perfect example that could to be followed by all the governments. Firstly a govt can conduct a public awareness campaign, then ban advertisement of cigarattes, in the next stage prohibit smoking inside all offices and institutions, then in the next stage in the public places, and then slowly prohibit sale (instead of prohibiting the sale and ban smoking completely in the initial stage itself). Actually we can see many modern day Govts taking such actions. Let me borrow the statement Allah uses at many places in the Quran. "These are lessons for those who think." If anyone argue that the subsequent orders nullify and abrogate the earlier one, it is without any understanding.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Brother optimist

your entire post only reveals to me that ou need a dictionary.

Originally Posted by optimist

Doesn't this fact prove that what is being discussed in this verse is not abrogating one verse in the quran with another verse? The mushriks of Mekka will not care a verse is the Quran is aboraged by another verse in the Quran.

that is your assumption. The reason mushriks had a problem because in their minds (for those who have no faith) they saw the change of rulings as a "flip flop" kind f how we see politicians flip floping from their stated mission before elections.

Firstly, the change of Qiblah was no abrogation. There was no Ayaat ordering the Muslims to face Jerusalem.

And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger (Muhammad [sal-Allâhu 'alayhi wa sallam]) from those who would turn on their heels (i.e. disobey the Messenger). Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allâh guided. (2:143)

The fact that Allah stated the qiblah that was before and how He changed that qiblah to Mecca, in the language of the arabs is calls "nasakha" i.e. the replacement of one command over another command. Learn the meanings of words

So there is no question of any abrogation any ayaat with another ayaat.

there is no two ayaah, however, that does not subtract the fact that Allah yansakhu (performed an abrogation or abrogated) the qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca within the same ayaah.

Even accepting there was an Ayaat directing Muslims to turn to Jerusalam, it is unnecessary to classify the direction to face Mekkah as abrogating the order to face Jesusalam. It is only to be understood as as command given under certain circumstances was reversed under some other circumstances (for a definite purpose).

i.e. abrogation
optimist, that was the most incredible heap of nonsense I have come across. The fact that your statment in bold particularly the underlined part was enough of your refuting your own self needs no further comment from me

Well, there is a verse in the Quran which says that women convicted for adultery should be subjected to house arrest until Allah provides some other solution. It is totally irrelevant to argue that the subsequent rule s abrogated the earlier order. There is no need to argue in this way. The earlier order was pronouced under certain circumstances, and when the time arrived a definte direction was given as promised earlier.

now you have no idea what the heck your talking about. Your just speaking jiberrish and are not even quoting to us the ayaah.

Another instance, Allah takes step by step action to bring prohibition of liquor. Allah could have given direct command in the initial stage itself prohibiting liquor. We all know the reason. Here also there is no need to argue the subsequent orders nullified the earlier ones. In a modern world, in order to prohibit smoking, this is a perfect example that could to be followed by all the governments. Firstly a govt can conduct a public awareness campaign, then ban advertisement of cigarattes, in the next stage prohibit smoking inside all offices and institutions, then in the next stage in the public places, and then slowly prohibit sale (instead of prohibiting the sale and ban smoking completely in the initial stage itself). Actually we can see many modern day Govts taking such actions. Let me borrow the statement Allah uses at many places in the Quran. "These are lessons for those who think." If anyone argue that the subsequent orders nullify and abrogate the earlier one, it is without any understanding.

Wassalam

1. brother, it takes emaan to prohibit the dunya matters, not "stages". Aisah radhiyallahu anha stated "the emaan was revealed first, and then the orders and prohibitions came after. Had the orders been revealed first, we would not have listened"

in this athar of Aisha, she has demonstrated that in order for orders to be obeyed, there has to be faith in the heart which only further demonstrates that when people question or nullify orders under arguments not grounded on Islam, it is only the extent of the faith in their heart. Had Allah reveersed His action by revealing the orders first, it would have been a complete fiasco

a perfect demonstration of such a fiasco was the american government in 1930 who prohibited alcohol. I need not to continue narrating what happen.

2. You are still not complying to the definitive definition of "abrogation". In the issue of alcohol
1. Allah allowed it
2. Allah restrained it
3. Allah prohibited it

That, in the language of the arabs is called "mansookha" i.e. abrogation

Now listen brother optimist, Now for the meat of the matter

Allah ordered this

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)

THEN, Allah ordered this

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)

So now I am asking, what is the ruling for the man who dies and leaves behind wives, do the wives wait 1 year, or do they wait 4 months and 10 days in order to remarry.

The majority of the scholars said that this Ayah (2:240) was abrogated by the Ayah (2:234), what Allah said:

﴿يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا﴾

(...they (the wives) shall wait (as regards their marriage) for four months and ten days.) (2:234)

For instance, Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Az-Zubayr said: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan:

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَجًا﴾

(And those of you who die and leave wives behind them) was abrogated by the other Ayah (2:234). Therefore, why did you collect it (meaning, in the Qur'an)'' He said, "O my nephew! I shall not change any part of the Qur'an from its place.''

The question that Ibn Az-Zubayr asked `Uthman means: `If the ruling of the Ayah (2:240) was abrogated to four months (the `Iddah of the widow, and refer to 2:234), then what is the wisdom behind including it in the Qur'an, although its ruling has been abrogated If the Ayah (2:240) remains (in the Qur'an) after the Ayah that abrogated it (2:234), this might imply that its ruling is still valid.' `Uthman, the Leader of the faithful, answered him by stating that this is a matter of the revelation, which mentioned these Ayat in this order. `Therefore, I shall leave the Ayah where I found it in the Qur'an.'

Ibn Abi Hatim reported that Ibn `Abbas said about what Allah said:

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَجًا وَصِيَّةً لازْوَاجِهِم مَّتَـعًا إِلَى الْحَوْلِ غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ﴾

(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, ) "The widow used to reside, and have her provisions provided for her for a year, in her deceased husband's house. Later, the Ayah that specified the inheritance (4:12) abrogated this Ayah (2:240), and thus the widow inherits one-fourth or one-eighth of what her (deceased) husband leaves behind.''

Ibn Abi Hatim also related that `Ali bin Abu Talhah stated that Ibn `Abbas said, "When a man died and left behind a widow, she used to remain in his house for a year for her `Iddah, all the while receiving her provisions during this time. Thereafter, Allah revealed this Ayah:

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَجًا يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا﴾

(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.) (2:234)

So, this is the `Iddah of the widow, unless she was pregnant, for her `Iddah then ends when she gives birth. Allah also said:

﴿وَلَهُنَّ الرُّبُعُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُمْ إِن لَّمْ يَكُنْ لَّكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَإِن كَانَ لَكُمْ وَلَدٌ فَلَهُنَّ الثُّمُنُ مِمَّا تَرَكْتُم﴾

(In that which you leave, their (your wives') share is a fourth if you leave no child; but if you leave a child, they get an eighth of that which you leave.) (4:12)

So Allah specified the share of the widow in the inheritance and there was no need for the will or the Nafaqah (maintenance) which were mentioned in (2:240).''

Ibn Abu Hatim stated that Mujahid, Al-Hasan, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, Ar-Rabi` and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that the Ayah (2:240) was abrogated by:

﴿أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ وَعَشْرًا﴾

(four months and ten days.) (2:234)

Al-Bukhari reported that Mujahid said that:

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَجًا﴾

(And those of you who die and leave wives behind them) (2:234) used to be the `Iddah, and the widow had to remain with her (deceased) husband's family (during that period, i.e., four months and ten days). Then, Allah revealed:

﴿وَالَّذِينَ يُتَوَفَّوْنَ مِنكُمْ وَيَذَرُونَ أَزْوَجًا وَصِيَّةً لازْوَاجِهِم مَّتَـعًا إِلَى الْحَوْلِ غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ فَإِنْ خَرَجْنَ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِى مَا فَعَلْنَ فِي أَنفُسِهِنَّ مِن مَّعْرُوفٍ﴾

(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 honorable (e.g., lawful marriage).)

So, Allah made the rest of the year, which is seven months and twenty days, as a will and testament for her. Consequently, if she wants, she could use her right in this will and remain in the residence (for the rest of the year). Or, if she wants, she could leave the (deceased husband's) house after the four months and ten days have passed. This is the meaning of what Allah said:

﴿غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ فَإِنْ خَرَجْنَ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ﴾

(...without turning them out, but if they (wives) leave, there is no sin on you.)

Therefore, the required term of `Iddah is still unchanged (refer to 2:234).

`Ata' quoted Ibn `Abbas, "This Ayah (2:240) has abrogated (the requirement that) the widow spends the `Iddah with his (i.e., her deceased husband's) family. So, she spends her `Iddah wherever she wants. This is the meaning of what Allah said:

﴿غَيْرَ إِخْرَاجٍ﴾

(without turning them out,).''




Now, I am asking optimist, you do realize that if you insist that your view on abrogation is unfounded, that it would by default entail that ALL of these authorities, Uthmaan ibn Affan, Ibn Az-Zubayr, and the companions in general along with their students like Ata and other than them were all to stupid to realize what you have arrived and concluded on the matter.


If you insist that your theory on abrogation only makes sense to previous scriptures and not the Qur'an itself, then you are automatically saying that everyone whom the prophet taught did not understand what ALlah was talking about and have accused the prophet of failing to teach his companions the meaning of the ayaat.


I mean, I am asking to find out if your mind can understand the ramifications of your argument.


This is essentially what revisionist methodologies does to the humain brain, it numbs the mind to understand the peripheral repercussions of their argument.


What essentially happens, as Yasir Qadhi stated, is that they completely defy all logic and common sense and make a fool out of themselves grammatically, historically, and the basic foundations of the religion. This is how one of them tried to interpret the ayaah

"And they ate of the tree" (regarding Adam and Eve) to mean that they had sex." this same mentality is what caused them to interpret Hoorul-Aiyn to mean 'white grapes".


May Allah save us and you from the religious malpractice of revisionist and reformist (deformist) ideas.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

Brother optimist

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

that is your assumption. The reason mushriks had a problem because in their minds (for those who have no faith) they saw the change of rulings as a "flip flop" kind f how we see politicians flip floping from their stated mission before elections.

Salam,

You can not catogorize it as just an assumption. Maulana Maudoodi also in his comment on verse this verse 2:106 in Tafheem-ul-Quran:

"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)

*This is in response to a doubt which the Jews tried to implant in the minds of the Muslims. If both the earlier Scriptures and the Qur’an were revelations from God, why was it – they asked – that the injunctions found in the earlier Scriptures had been replaced by new ones in the Qur’an? How could the same God issue divergent injunctions?… …”

there is no two ayaah, however, that does not subtract the fact that Allah yansakhu (performed an abrogation or abrogated) the qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca within the same ayaah.

According to the verse itself, the said command was given “to test those who followed the Messenger". That is why I said, an order given under certain circumstances and for a definite purpose and its subsequent reversal can not be taken as a basis for abrogation. You have to show me examples of reveral of an order when all other circumstances remain the same. Actually, it is in this context I mentined the following verse.

"If any of your women commit indecency, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst yourselves. If they are proven guilty, restrict their movement by confining them to their houses for life or until Allah opens out a way for them. (4:15)

It is not fair to say that the subsequent verse revealed prescribing punishment abrogated the above order. The subseqent verse is only a continuation and explanation of the above order. Allah is ordering Muslims to follow something considering the circumstances and situations until Allah brings up some other solution

Now listen brother optimist, Now for the meat of the matter

Allah ordered this

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)

THEN, Allah ordered this

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)

So now I am asking, what is the ruling for the man who dies and leaves behind wives, do the wives wait 1 year, or do they wait 4 months and 10 days in order to remarry.

Firstly, you did not understand the difference between the verses correctly. One year prescribed is not Iddat period, it is maintanace and loadging right given to a widow. And 4 months and 10 days is idaat period whether a woman is divorced or her husband died (or until child birth if pregnant).

Now the claim of abrogation of verse 2:240 by 2:234

1. Even you yourself quoted that "The majority of the scholars said that this Ayah (2:240) was abrogated by the Ayah (2:234)". Why only majority of scholars said and why some of the scholars objected?

2. Notice that the verse 2:240 comes after six verses later 2:234. How come a verse that occur 6 verses (2:234) earlier abrogate a verse that comes subsequently (2:240) just after 6 verses.

3. The discussion in both verses 2:234 and 2:240 are different. As per 2:240, for a widow, at least one year's maintenance and board and lodging is necessary and should be provided for in the man's will; but if she goes somewhere else of her own free will, then this would be the end of such a responsibility. However, the verse 2:234 is with ragard to waiting period for a widow for remarraige.

4. The verse 2:240 is to ensure that a widow get proper loading facility during her iddat period (which could be either 4 months and 10 days, or about one year if she is pregnant). It is to ensure a fair treatment of a widow for a certain period including their iddaat this one year period of maintanance and loading facitily. Allah may have taken into consideration the possibility of a pregnant wodow also while fixing this one year maintanace and loadging facility for a widow.

Anyhow, even according to you, only majority of scholars unhold abrogation on 2:240 by 2:234. All these disagreements resort to complicated explanations just show the unsoundness of the whole arguement.

(In that which you leave, their (your wives') share is a fourth if you leave no child; but if you leave a child, they get an eighth of that which you leave.) (4:12)

So Allah specified the share of the widow in the inheritance and there was no need for the will or the Nafaqah (maintenance) which were mentioned in (2:240).''

Verse 2:240 is actually a seperate right given for a widow to ensure that she gets proper maintanace and housing facility during her Iddat period, which is likely to extend to one year if she is pregnant (please don't argue that 12 months is not need for delivery..this is just a fair provision from Allah to ensure them sufficient provision and protection for certain period including their iddat period). Are you telling me that once she get 1/4th or 1/8th share she can not claim her right given by Allah under 2:240? Are you telling me that even without completing the Iddaat period a widow could be asked to leave the premises by receiving 1/4 or 1/8th share? The right given to a widow under 2:240 is an additional provision for a widow over and obove her right of share in the property. It should be ensured that before dividing the property of a deceased person his widow gets provision and accomodation facility for one year. It is her maintance right during her iddat period which is likely to extend to one year if she is pregnant. As I said earlier, Actually iddat period is only 4 months and 10 days and until delivery if she is pregnant. One year is fixed by Allah as a fair provision for a widow during her iddat period that may extend of one year if she is pregnant. However, a widow can decide to leave the premises out of her own free will before the end of one year.

[bordi]

All that energy wasted on each other rather than focusing it on where it should go

No wonder we are in the mess that we are in

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

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.

Salam,

Well, do you mean five sucklings still valid?

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by bordi

All that energy wasted on each other rather than focusing it on where it should go

No wonder we are in the mess that we are in

if muslims can't free themselves from alien methodologies, it results in what your talking about, and what is worse is when one does not recognize the discourse for what it is

[al-boriqee]

posted by optimist

Dear brother Al Boriqee, Assalamu alaikum

I think you are not interested to discuss the issue of abrogation in order not to cause any confusion to others in the forum. However, I would like to get your comments for the following points at your convenience, even if you take couple of weeks.

now, I was udner the impression that the clearly defined proofs listed above sealed the deal that wouldn't need no further discussion. Apparently, even clearness has to be explained as well

when i get a chance, i'll get to this

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

posted by optimist



now, I was udner the impression that the clearly defined proofs listed above sealed the deal that wouldn't need no further discussion. Apparently, even clearness has to be explained as well

when i get a chance, i'll get to this

Salam,

Actaully I felt like you ignored my questions in order to avoid a public discussion. It is the reason why I sent a private message. I was asking clarifications for the so called 'defined proofs'. My questions were valid.

Wassalam