IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum: Abrogation?

Author

Message

Chrysalis

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2031

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:34am

Originally posted by rami

This is typical of what i was saying beffore about the dumbing down of islam and every indavidual thinking they can deduce there own fatwas from ahadith and how they think IT is more reliable.

And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion - so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say. What you term 'dumbing down' of Islam, I take as like Allah said, Islam is was made easy on us. If an old woman can stand up to Umar R.A and challenge his interpretations, then I dont see why any imam is more fool-proof. Ofcourse, the person needs to back up his/her stance with the Quran or Hadith, not just a 'cz I say so'. And that is why muslims let thier Mullahs or Taliban get away with what they say and do, 'cz they dont have the right to object to interpretations put forward by others - otherwise they are overstepping boundaries since they are but a comman, dumb man.

What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . .

"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

IP Logged

Chrysalis

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2031

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:44am

Without implying anything about the character of Dr Zakir Naik he is not a qualified scholar sister he is a Doctor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik

I anticipated such a response, but still did not jump the fence and assume.

A scholar is a learned person. And it all boils down to credibility, an educated, learned person versus a scholar with a 'degree'. Trust me bro, we already have our fill of 'qualified' scholars, btw 'qualified' scholars were part of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda too.

A 'degree' does not neccessarily reflect a scholar's correctness of opinions. You are ofcourse entitled to your opinions . . . however I felt safe to quote Zakir, because despite bieng a common-man, and not qualified - he is conscientious enough to back evrything up with resources and does not dilute what he says with personal opinions. I may not agree with his debates. . . but I still find it hard to discredit what he says.

And yes, he is a medical doc indeed, and he doesnt claim a qualification either.

"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

IP Logged

rami
Male Islam
Senior Member

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 4:27am

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by Chrysalis

And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion

I don't think you understand what that original argument was about, it was referring to monks and priests forgiving the sins of man on behalf of Allah not the criticism of scholarship itself which is what you seem to be doing.

- so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say.

you are also using this argument in the wrong manner, Allah himself in the Quran says if you dont know ask the people of knowledge [meaning there wont be a shortage of uneducated individuals], the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] condemned the man who made up his own rulings without first asking. following the basics of islam is easy trying to reach the heights of knowledge is not...there is a reason why the door to ijtihad was closed and it wasn't becouse islam was easy.

dont confuse the subject matter.

If an old woman can stand up to Umar R.A and challenge his interpretations, then I dont see why any imam is more fool-proof.

is this the norm or the exception, please be realistic.

And that is why muslims let thier Mullahs or Taliban get away with what they say and do, 'cz they dont have the right to object to interpretations put forward by others - otherwise they are overstepping boundaries since they are but a comman, dumb man.

you are confusing the mullahs you hate and there politics with the madhhabs and the mujtahids of this Ummah, i am exclusively referring to the latter since they alone had the right to Ijtihad in this ummah not your mullahs and there modern day politics.

Please don't confuse the subject matter, the madhhabs and this issue i.e the context of all my comments have nothing to do with politics and who has abused there position of power.

What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . .

you dont seem familiar with the particulars of the Mujtahids [Mullah Omar is not a mujtahid, just so we are clear] works so i don't see how you can have any sort of perspective on the subject....you simply agree they where great people without really knowing why or how.

so then how can your generalities be any kind of substitute for what is a matter of history at this point in time and we arnt attempting to refute that are we.

when the word scholar is used in this context the fair assumption is that it means "Islamic scholar", Dr Zakir naik is not a scholar by any usage of the term since he is not a researcher but a medical doctor [although i could be wrong]. In either case no not any scholar in any field of knowledge can serve as an expert on Islamic legal matters his opinion is no more relevant than any other educated persons and nothing in comparison to any individual actually qualified in this area of knowledge.

Its the norm for any other area of science why do think it would be any different for the Islamic sciences, do you think that little of them that any person of the street can serve as an expert.

Do you know Pope Benedict is a theologian, do you understand the significance of that qualification and why his opinion on matters of theology from the christian perspective would be considered expert [to put it lightly] in comparison to your local priest who may happen to be a medical doctor as well....This is the comparison [in terms of knowledge] between Dr Zakir Naik and an Islamic scholar actually qualified in this field, so then what of the difference between him and an actual mujtahid?

with respect sister insha allah you increase in knowledge and learn the difference between what you are assuming and what the reality is, im not belittling you when i say your opinion regarding Islamic scholars is not in the ball park of being correct and i say that as a matter of fact please do the research we are all in the process of learning.

Edited by rami - 17 August 2008 at 7:10pm

Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

IP Logged

Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1403

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 8:59am

Originally posted by rami

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Came across a website, that basically says in a nutshell, what I was trying to say. Hence my views regarding abrogation are similar to what this particular scholar says. Thats because I didnt wish to overstep my boundaries, so I'll just post it - and (try to) leave it at that (until need be).

Without implying anything about the character of Dr Zakir Naik he is not a qualified scholar sister he is a Doctor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik

He may not be a "qualified scholar", but he has explained the concept of abrogation more clearly than anything else I have read so far. Thanks, Chrysalis!

Rami, do you disagree with anything Naik has written?

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.

IP Logged

rami
Male Islam
Senior Member

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 7:04pm

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Ron are you asking for the Islamic position or any position on the subject?

You also asked a general question about whether or not it existed, this has been answered clearly. If you want to now discuss which verse abrogated what then that subject matter is very complicated and beyond you or me or Dr Zakir Naik since he hasnt even studied the islamic science and is basing his opinion of generalities rather than actual research.

Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

IP Logged

Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1403

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 8:08pm

Originally posted by rami

Ron are you asking for the Islamic position or any position on the subject?

I am interested in the opinions of as many Muslims as possible. If there is a single "Islamic position" then that should become evident, but it doesn't sound like it.

Mostly I wanted to know if the concept of abrogation implied that some verses in the Quran were no longer valid. Dr. Naik has explained it in a way that does not involve contradictions, which makes sense to me. Do you agree with his explanation?

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.

IP Logged

rami
Male Islam
Senior Member

Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550

Posted: 17 August 2008 at 10:24pm

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

I agree with him, the Quran does not contain contradictions. I don't agree with some of his explanation of why since some contain flaws in logic which i wont point out to avoid adding fuel to the debate over the particulars of the issue. As i said a few posts back there is an issue with using the word "abrogation" to define what naskh wa mansookh mean in the islamic legal sciences since it carries with it its own english/western/modern baggage if you like and that isnt in line with the arabic so you cant formulate or extrapolate any in depth arugements against the quran based on this word.

Its interesting that the question begins with Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation and no where in the article does he deny this but simply elaborates on how it does not contain contradictions.

He only touches lightly on what the madhabs are reffering to by "naskh wa mansukh". If you have the capacity to see the subtle flaws in some of his arguments then i will see what i can explain if not accept it as is its well written.

Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

IP Logged

halfalife

Starter
Starter

Joined: 18 August 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14

Posted: 18 August 2008 at 4:47am

The quran does not contradict itself, so the reality is there is no need whatsoever for the abrogations. The quran does seem contradicting when interperted through the supposed sunnah or tradition which sometimes result in a contradiction between the behaviour of muslims and the text of the quran, so therefore some choose the "science" of abrogation to deal with verses that go against their traditionally held beliefs and thus their behaviour.

What it comes down to basically is that the muslims, like the christians and jews before them have chosen to raise the word of men over the words of Allah, instead of adhering to a belief without contradictions of text they chose a belief of conflict in which verses have to be abrogated through the doctrine of men as to validate their beliefs and in some cases their hostility and even violence against others.

Edited by halfalife - 18 August 2008 at 5:10am

IP Logged

	Active Topics Memberlist Calendar Search Help
	Register Login Old Forum

Islam for non-Muslims
IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islam for non-Muslims

Author	Message
Chrysalis Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2031	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:34am
	*Originally posted by rami* This is typical of what i was saying beffore about the dumbing down of islam and every indavidual thinking they can deduce there own fatwas from ahadith and how they think IT is more reliable. And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion - so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say. What you term 'dumbing down' of Islam, I take as like Allah said, Islam is was made easy on us. If an old woman can stand up to Umar R.A and challenge his interpretations, then I dont see why any imam is more fool-proof. Ofcourse, the person needs to back up his/her stance with the Quran or Hadith, not just a 'cz I say so'. And that is why muslims let thier Mullahs or Taliban get away with what they say and do, 'cz they dont have the right to object to interpretations put forward by others - otherwise they are overstepping boundaries since they are but a comman, dumb man. What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . .
	"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
	IP Logged

Chrysalis Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2031	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:44am
	Without implying anything about the character of Dr Zakir Naik he is not a qualified scholar sister he is a Doctor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik I anticipated such a response, but still did not jump the fence and assume. A scholar is a learned person. And it all boils down to credibility, an educated, learned person versus a scholar with a 'degree'. Trust me bro, we already have our fill of 'qualified' scholars, btw 'qualified' scholars were part of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda too. A 'degree' does not neccessarily reflect a scholar's correctness of opinions. You are ofcourse entitled to your opinions . . . however I felt safe to quote Zakir, because despite bieng a common-man, and not qualified - he is conscientious enough to back evrything up with resources and does not dilute what he says with personal opinions. I may not agree with his debates. . . but I still find it hard to discredit what he says. And yes, he is a medical doc indeed, and he doesnt claim a qualification either.
	"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."
	IP Logged

rami Male Islam Senior Member Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2000 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2550	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 4:27am
	Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem *Originally posted by Chrysalis* And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion I don't think you understand what that original argument was about, it was referring to monks and priests forgiving the sins of man on behalf of Allah not the criticism of scholarship itself which is what you seem to be doing. - so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say. you are also using this argument in the wrong manner, Allah himself in the Quran says if you dont know ask the people of knowledge [meaning there wont be a shortage of uneducated individuals], the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] condemned the man who made up his own rulings without first asking. following the basics of islam is easy trying to reach the heights of knowledge is not...there is a reason why the door to ijtihad was closed and it wasn't becouse islam was easy. dont confuse the subject matter. If an old woman can stand up to Umar R.A and challenge his interpretations, then I dont see why any imam is more fool-proof. is this the norm or the exception, please be realistic. And that is why muslims let thier Mullahs or Taliban get away with what they say and do, 'cz they dont have the right to object to interpretations put forward by others - otherwise they are overstepping boundaries since they are but a comman, dumb man. you are confusing the mullahs you hate and there politics with the madhhabs and the mujtahids of this Ummah, i am exclusively referring to the latter since they alone had the right to Ijtihad in this ummah not your mullahs and there modern day politics. Please don't confuse the subject matter, the madhhabs and this issue i.e the context of all my comments have nothing to do with politics and who has abused there position of power. What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . . you dont seem familiar with the particulars of the Mujtahids [Mullah Omar is not a mujtahid, just so we are clear] works so i don't see how you can have any sort of perspective on the subject....you simply agree they where great people without really knowing why or how. so then how can your generalities be any kind of substitute for what is a matter of history at this point in time and we arnt attempting to refute that are we. A scholar is a learned person. And it all boils down to credibility, an educated, learned person versus a scholar with a 'degree'. Trust me bro, we already have our fill of 'qualified' scholars, btw 'qualified' scholars were part of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda too. when the word scholar is used in this context the fair assumption is that it means "Islamic scholar", Dr Zakir naik is not a scholar by any usage of the term since he is not a researcher but a medical doctor [although i could be wrong]. In either case no not any scholar in any field of knowledge can serve as an expert on Islamic legal matters his opinion is no more relevant than any other educated persons and nothing in comparison to any individual actually qualified in this area of knowledge. Its the norm for any other area of science why do think it would be any different for the Islamic sciences, do you think that little of them that any person of the street can serve as an expert. Do you know Pope Benedict is a theologian, do you understand the significance of that qualification and why his opinion on matters of theology from the christian perspective would be considered expert [to put it lightly] in comparison to your local priest who may happen to be a medical doctor as well....This is the comparison [in terms of knowledge] between Dr Zakir Naik and an Islamic scholar actually qualified in this field, so then what of the difference between him and an actual mujtahid? A 'degree' does not neccessarily reflect a scholar's correctness of opinions. You are ofcourse entitled to your opinions . . . however I felt safe to quote Zakir, because despite bieng a common-man, and not qualified - he is conscientious enough to back evrything up with resources and does not dilute what he says with personal opinions. I may not agree with his debates. . . but I still find it hard to discredit what he says. with respect sister insha allah you increase in knowledge and learn the difference between what you are assuming and what the reality is, im not belittling you when i say your opinion regarding Islamic scholars is not in the ball park of being correct and i say that as a matter of fact please do the research we are all in the process of learning. Edited by rami - 17 August 2008 at 7:10pm
	Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1403	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 8:59am
	*Originally posted by rami* *Originally posted by Chrysalis* Came across a website, that basically says in a nutshell, what I was trying to say. Hence my views regarding abrogation are similar to what this particular scholar says. Thats because I didnt wish to overstep my boundaries, so I'll just post it - and (try to) leave it at that (until need be). Without implying anything about the character of Dr Zakir Naik he is not a qualified scholar sister he is a Doctor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik He may not be a "qualified scholar", but he has explained the concept of abrogation more clearly than anything else I have read so far. Thanks, Chrysalis! Rami, do you disagree with anything Naik has written?
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

rami Male Islam Senior Member Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2000 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2550	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 7:04pm
	Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem Ron are you asking for the Islamic position or any position on the subject? You also asked a general question about whether or not it existed, this has been answered clearly. If you want to now discuss which verse abrogated what then that subject matter is very complicated and beyond you or me or Dr Zakir Naik since he hasnt even studied the islamic science and is basing his opinion of generalities rather than actual research.
	Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
	IP Logged

Ron Webb Male Humanism Senior Member Joined: 30 January 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1403	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 8:08pm
	*Originally posted by rami* Ron are you asking for the Islamic position or any position on the subject? I am interested in the opinions of as many Muslims as possible. If there is a single "Islamic position" then that should become evident, but it doesn't sound like it. Mostly I wanted to know if the concept of abrogation implied that some verses in the Quran were no longer valid. Dr. Naik has explained it in a way that does not involve contradictions, which makes sense to me. Do you agree with his explanation?
	Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
	IP Logged

rami Male Islam Senior Member Senior Member Joined: 01 March 2000 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2550	Posted: 17 August 2008 at 10:24pm
	Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem I agree with him, the Quran does not contain contradictions. I don't agree with some of his explanation of why since some contain flaws in logic which i wont point out to avoid adding fuel to the debate over the particulars of the issue. As i said a few posts back there is an issue with using the word "abrogation" to define what naskh wa mansookh mean in the islamic legal sciences since it carries with it its own english/western/modern baggage if you like and that isnt in line with the arabic so you cant formulate or extrapolate any in depth arugements against the quran based on this word. Its interesting that the question begins with Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation and no where in the article does he deny this but simply elaborates on how it does not contain contradictions. He only touches lightly on what the madhabs are reffering to by "naskh wa mansukh". If you have the capacity to see the subtle flaws in some of his arguments then i will see what i can explain if not accept it as is its well written.
	Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.
	IP Logged

halfalife Starter Joined: 18 August 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 14	Posted: 18 August 2008 at 4:47am
	The quran does not contradict itself, so the reality is there is no need whatsoever for the abrogations. The quran does seem contradicting when interperted through the supposed sunnah or tradition which sometimes result in a contradiction between the behaviour of muslims and the text of the quran, so therefore some choose the "science" of abrogation to deal with verses that go against their traditionally held beliefs and thus their behaviour. What it comes down to basically is that the muslims, like the christians and jews before them have chosen to raise the word of men over the words of Allah, instead of adhering to a belief without contradictions of text they chose a belief of conflict in which verses have to be abrogated through the doctrine of men as to validate their beliefs and in some cases their hostility and even violence against others. Edited by halfalife - 18 August 2008 at 5:10am
	IP Logged

Topic: Abrogation?
	<< Prev Page of 15 Next >>