Print Page | Close Window

Abrogation?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islam for non-Muslims
Forum Discription: Non-Muslims can ask questions about Islam, discussion for the purpose of learning.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12982
Printed Date: 01 October 2014 at 7:22pm


Topic: Abrogation?
Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: Abrogation?
Date Posted: 14 August 2008 at 11:12am
I keep coming across the concept of "abrogation", which alleges that certain verses can abrogate (supercede, nullify) other verses which were revealed earlier.  Abrogation is used to resolve apparent contradictions in the Quran, and is based on al-Bakara 2:106: "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"
 
Mostly I see this on anti-Islamic sites, but they do seem to reference genuine Muslim scholars.  The only Islamic sources I have seen condemn abrogation as unnecessary and unworthy of the Quran, which is perfect and contains no contradictions; but these are usually "Quran-only" web sites so I'm not sure if they are representative.
 
Is abrogation a mainstream Islamic teaching, or a discredited heresy, or what?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.



Replies:
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 14 August 2008 at 10:29pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Hi ron,

When allah revealed the Quran he revealed it over a period of 23 years, in this period the laws [as i understand it] where revealed in a way to move people away from certain behavior or attitudes towards things. It wasnt simply a matter of Allah said this therefor do it, eg's include alcohol it was first revealed "dont aproach prayer while drunk" then later on alcohol altogether was banned. So what of the verse dont aproach prayer while drunk can we now say [since we are now reading both commands between the same book covers] you can drink as long as you dont go to prayer drunk?

the issue may seem the way it is becouse the verses of the quran where later on compiled into a book and people now read the Quran like they would expect to read anyother book not keeping in mind that esentially it is simply a collection of verses put together into book form but it wasnt revealed as a book in one time period. 

It should be fair to say any person wishing to refute the Quran and claiming they are doing it in an ethical and scientific manner, must consider this point as key to understanding the Quran.

Question:

I have heard from many sources, one of them is not Muslim, who say that what is revealed in the later sura's in the Qur'an supersede the earlier surahs. When I heard this I was extremely skeptical, however I thought I would ask you sidi just to confirm this...

Answer:

In%20the%20Name%20of%20Allah,%20Most%20Gracious,%20Most%20Merciful

Among the verses in the Quran containing orders or laws there are verses that abrogate verses previously revealed and acted upon. These abrogating verse are called _nasikh_ and those whose validity they terminate are called _mansukh_.

The common notion of abrogation, that is, canceling of one law or code by another, is based on the idea that a new law is needed because of a mistake or shortcoming in the previous one. It is clearly inappropriate to ascribe a mistake in law-making to God, Who is perfect, and whose creation admit of no flaws.

However, in the Quran, the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws.

It is in this light that we should regard the wisdom of abrogation within the Quran:

"And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say: you are just inventing it. Most of them do not know. Say: The Holy Spirit (Gibril) has revealed it from your hand with truth and as a guidance and good news for those who have surrendered (to God)" [16:101-102]

It is a science on its own in Islam to know the Nasikh and Mansukh.

Hajj Gibril




-------------
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.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 14 August 2008 at 10:56pm
 
  Please remember there is no Nasikh or mansookh in the Quran. There is no verse abrogated or abrogating verse. If there is any then it may please (both) be presented here on the forum.
 
 About Alcohol, there are three verses all still valid.
 
 1. In the drinking (wine)  and in gambling there are advantages and losses for men. But the losses (disadvantages) are more than the advantages....
 
 2. O, Believers, do not go near prayer when you are drunk......
 
 3. Surely the wine and gambling are the dirty works of the devil. So keep away from them.... So that you may achieve comfort....
 
 Please note that all the above verses are valid even today... Tell us which is abrogated.. Welcome,,,, more later.....


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 15 August 2008 at 1:22am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Br there is a difference of opinion among some scholar as to whether these verses actually abrogate other verses. And there certainly is an Islamic science about this matter so denying that it even exists is ridiculous.

I dont know accurate this is in presenting the views of the hanafi madhhab, its opinionated and draws many conclusions about the significance [or otherwise] of various subject matter rather than simply prsenting facts or events....but the point is made i think.

Hanafi Doctrine of Naskh (Abrogation)

Hamdard Islamicus, Vol. 22 (1999) No. 3
by Dr. M. Akram Rana

In the usual classification of Muslim sciences, the usul al-fiqh isgenerally defined as the science of the proofs which lead to the establishment of legal standard.(1)

The usul had been the subject of study by jurists as attested by the fact that Abu Yusuf discusses certain aspects of it in his Kitab al-Kharaj(2) and Shaybani is reported to have written a book on the usul.(3) But this term had not yet acquired the technical meaning of a science dealing specifically with the sources of Islamic law. The Risalah,(4) a unique work in the literature of Islamic law, gave Shafi’i a name as the founder of the science of usul al-fiqh. Shafi’i was followed in his monumental work on the principles of jurisprudence by a Hanafi jurist, al-Karkhi, the teacher of al-Jassas. Although his treatment was very sketchy, it was a fruitful start in the field concerned.(5) Al-Karkhi was followed by Abu Bakr al-Jassas who wrote a comprehensive book about usul al-fiqh in which he explained the views of his teacher al-Karkhi.(6) The Usul al-Jassas, as a matter of fact, is the first systematic attempt ever made to describe the principles of Muslim jurisprudence. The late Hanafi works on the usul and particularly on al-Nasikh wa’l Mansukh give us clues that most of the ideas were borrowed from the Usul al-Jassas.(7) Mustafa Zaid,(8) an Egyptian Writer on the subject of al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh, states that definition of naskh by Jassas was followed for five centuries. Jassas included in his Usul the views who do and do not believe in the theory of Naskh. The views of his fellow Hanafites like 'Isa b. Aban are also explained. Further, he presented Karkhi's views and remarked that Karkhi's opinions were clearer than those of 'Isa b. Aban's.(9) Records show that Jassas was an exponent of the Hanafi school and its acknowledged Usuli. The production of the Usul al-Jassas was intended to verify the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifah. Jassas endeavoured to document the Hanafi views in the light of verses of the Qur'an and the ahadith of the Prophet (P.B.H.).

Abu Hanifah may here be mentioned as the founder of the system. He acquired much of his knowledge from Hammad b. Abi Sulaymain who is regarded as the pioneer of the Hanafi school. The fiqh of the Iraqi school was supported and established by the great pupils of Imam Abu Hanifah i.e., Abu Yusuf and Shaybani. At the request of caliph Harun al-Rasyid, the former compiled his Kitab al-Kharaj which, however, covers much wider ground than is indicated by its title. However, little is learnt about naskh from the book. Abu Yusuf maintains that the Sunnah can override the Qur'an. The abrogation of the Qur'anic injunction of ablution (al-Qur'an, V:6) by the wiping of the shoes is a case in point.(10) Shaybani, like his companion Abu Yusuf, did not discuss the principles of abrogation in detail although some instances of naskh are discussed in his works. Shaybani reported that the Prophet (P.B.H.) launched a campaign against. Al-Ta'if at the beginning of the sacred month of Muharram and continued it for forty days until he captured the city in the month of Safar. Shaybani then produced a report on the authority of Mujahid in which he had declared that the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months was abrogated. According to Mujahid, the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months as laid down in the Qur'an (11:217) was abrogated by God in another verse: "slay the Pagans wherever you may find them" (al-Qur’an, IX:5). When Shaybani that fighting during the sacred months, according to Kalbi, was not abrogated, he remarked that Kalbi's opinion was not to be followed.(11) This sort of report tells us that there was no agreed theory of naskh. It also informs us that there seems to be no agreement among the jurists on the incidence of naskh. The earlier works on fiqh and hadith show that the word naskh was not used frequently. In the Muwatta’ of Imam Malik the word naskh is mentioned only once. It is held that the Qur'anic injunction which prescribed the precise shares of the listed relatives of a deceased person (al-Qur’an, IV:11-12) abrogated the Qur'anic injunction concerning wasiyyah (al-Qur’an, 11:180). Imam Malik also indicated that the Qur'an could abrogate the Sunnah, but in this case he used the word taraka. He agreed with his teacher Zuhri on the point that the later command abrogated the earlier.(12)

The works on al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh reveal that there was no single reported instance in which the Prophet (P.B.H.) said explicitly that a certain ruling was abrogated. Hamadhani, however, records two versions in which the name of the Prophet (P.B.H.) was involved. 'Urwah b. Zubayr said: "I testify that ray father told me that the Prophet (P.B.H.) would make a statement and after a while, he would abrogate it by means of another statement just as the Qur’an abrogates other parts of the Qur’an". Ibn Baylmani reported on the authority of his father that ibn 'Umar heard from the Prophet (P.B.H.) who had said: "Some parts of my ahadith abrogate other parts of my ahadith". Hamadhani, after recording this hadith, argued that no one except ibn Baylmani had narrated this ahadith. Further, ibn Baylmani was not a reliable person and his hadith must not be accepted.(13)

Shafi’i, according to Hamadhani, was the first scholar who systematised the principles of naskh.(14) This reveals that principles of naskh were in operation. Before we present the Hanafi's views on abrogation and the arguments against and for the theory concerned presented by Jassas and documented by Sarakhsi, it would be extremely useful to see how Jassas settles the meaning of naskh.

The scholars disagreed concerning the meaning of naskh. Some said: "it refers to naql (transfer). They say: nasakha al-Kitab (He copied the book i.e., he transferred what was in, the original copy to another copy). Others said: it refers to ibtal (nullification). They say: nasakhat al-shams al-zill, (the sun removed the shade). Some of them said: naskh is zalah. They refer to nasakhat al-rih al-athar (The wind obliterated the traces). These words are close in meaning, and whatever naskh may mean in the language, when it is used for the abrogation of the ruling, it is used metaphorically." Jassas rejects all the possible meaning of naskh, derived from secular usage whether it refers to naql, ibtal or iza1ah.(15)

Jassas restricts discussion of the word naskh to the Shari’ah usage and remarks: "Naskh is the declaration of the time of the particular ruling which we thought would remain for ever, but the second ruling made it clear that the time of the ruling was for a certain period and it was now no longer valid."(16)

This meaning of naskh had not been defined by any of Jassas' predecessors, therefore, he was the first person to declare that naskh in the Shari’ah is the bayan of the duration of the ruling. This definition of naskh was adopted by Jassas in order to refute the views of those Muslim scholars who held that naskh, never occurred in the Shari’ah. It was also to refute those Jews who had declared that Moses had informed them that the Shari’ah of the Torah and working on the day of the Sabbath would never be abrogated. Thirdly, it was to refute the views of Shafi’i who had maintained that only the Qur'an superseded the Qur'an; only the Sunnah superseded the Sunnah. He claimed that they did not and could not supersede each other. The function of the Sunnah, he believes, is to follow what is laid down in the Qur'an. In support of his view he listed some Qur’anic verses which according to him clearly spoke about the abrogation of the Qur'an alone.(17) He refers the Qur'anic verses X:15 and II:106. His opponents interpreted the same verses to indicate that the Qur’an could be abrogated by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur'an. According to Jassas, the Qur’an (11:106) indicated that naskh occurred in the Qur'an. It did not indicate that the Qur'anic verse would be abrogated by a better or similar Qur'anic verse, since nothing prevented as from understanding from the verse that abrogation might be achieved by the Sunnah which was revealed to the Prophet (P.B.H.), and this, he argued, was the precise meaning of the verses: "we bring better or like thereof("18.) God meant to state that He would make a ruling superior to the first in the sense of its being easier to perform, or richer in terms of reward.(19)

Concerning those, Muslim scholars who did not believe in the theory of naskh, Jassas stated: "Some of the modern scholars have asserted that there was no naskh in the Shari’ah of our Prophet (P.B.H.). The occurrence of naskh was merely an indication that laws of the previous prophets (A.S.) were abrogated like the Sabbath and facing towards the East or the West while praying. They had argued that our Prophet (P.B.H.) was the last of the prophets (A S.) and his Shari’ah was confirmed and everlasting until the day of judgement. The man (Abu Muslim al-Isfahani) who had held this view was endowed with knowledge of rhetoric and Arabic language, but he had no knowledge of jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence. Although it could not be doubted that he was perfect in faith, he deviated greatly from the right path by declaring this dogma, since no one had reported this before him. Our predecessors and their successors understood from the religion of God, that numerous rulings were abrogated from it; and they have narrated these reports in a way which could not be questioned. There are general, specific, confirmed and obscure passages in the Qur'an. The one who rejected the occurrence of naskh, rejected all its general, specific, confirmed and obscure commands because these categories all arrived in the same manner. This man had derived from the abrogated and abrogating verses, judgements which were excluded from the interpretations of our early scholars I (Jassas) could not understand from where he had obtained his information. However, I maintain that he had used his own judgement leaving aside the reports of the salaf. The Prophet (P.B.H.) had said: 'whoever interpreted the Qur'an by using his personal opinion, certainly committed a sin'."

Jassas' opponents quoted several passages from the Qur’an in order to show that abrogation or withdrawal of the verses was impossible; God said: 'We have without doubt, sent down the Message (Qur’an) and We will surely guard it (from corruption) (al-Qur’an, XV:9). God also said: "It is for us to collect it (the Qur’an) and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it, follow then its recital (as promulgated). Nay, more it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear)" (al-Qur'an, LXXV:17-19). The explicit meaning of the verses require that God would guard the Qur’an for ever and its implication is for the whole ummah because He did not specify the time or generation. God said: "...it (the Qur'an), is no less a Message for all creatures". (al-Qur'an, XII:104). God in this verse informed us that the whole Qur'an is a Message (or Reminder) and it confirms that there would be no abrogation of the wording, because what is abrogated or forgotten and did not reach us, would not be considered as a Message for the people.

Jassas explains away these verses by simply saying that they refer to something else. The verses do not prevent the possibility of the ruling being abrogated. In a similar vein, the verses do not prevent the possibility of the wording being abrogated, said Jasas.

The view that these verses do not prevent us from talking about the abrogation of the wording or ruling might mean that Jassas was dealing with the two phenomena of the naskh:
  1. Naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm and
  2. Naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah.

The first is adopted by Jassas in order to establish the ruling of kaffarat al-yamin which is imposed upon a believer who fails to fulfil his deliberate oath. The Hanafis argued that three days should be consecutive, because the wording mutatabi’at had existed in 'Abd Allah b. Mas’ud's reading.(20) Jassas and Sarakhsi claim that the wording was withdrawn while the ruling remained valid.(21) Tabari was also of the view that the keeper of the fast who has to expiate for the breaking of an oath should fast for three continuous days. There is no disagreement among the scholars that this will suffice; others disagree as to whether fasting on non-consecutive days will suffice as expiation.(22)

Shifi’i’s predecessors, both Hanafis and Malikis, allowed the abrogation of the Sunnah by the Qur'an and vice verse. For Shafi'i who had interpreted the verse No. 106 of the Surah al-Baqarah (No. II) in the light of the verse No. 10 of the Surah Nahl (No. XVI), it was very difficult to adopt the procedure. Shafi'i succeeded in his attempts and secured the place of the Sunnah as a source of law and the danger which had threatened it was no longer felt. Even the followers of Shafi’i, let alone the Hanafis and Malikis, felt free to, revert to pre-Shafi'i thinking. Jassas, a Hanafi exponent, had no difficulty, therefore, in arguing that the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur’an and the Qur'an could be abrogated by the Sunnah. However, they could not be abrogated by khabr al-wahid. Further, khabr al-wahid as an addition to the Qur'an cannot be accepted.(23)

The naskh implied that the later command abrogated the earlier. Sarakhsi says: "The contradiction between the sources is impossible, since this would mean Divine fallibility; in actuality the contradiction is created by our human inability to estimate correctly the date of the texts. Once this has been done, however, the later abrogates the earlier."(24)

Among other principles of the naskh, one ofthem is very important. Once the date has been established, the nasikh verse or hadith became easy to be traced. Reports from the Companions and Successors are also decisive in the process of distinguishing the nasikh from the mansukh. This indicates that the naskh as a principle was alleged to have been accepted during the lifetime of the Companions. Jassas' final criterion for determining the nasikh from the mansukh isthat of ijma'. However, ijma' itself cannot abrogate the ruling of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

The principles of naskh were justified by referring to the wording of the Qur'anic verses II:106 and XVI:101. The verses were shown to provide sufficient grounds for the occurrence of the naskh. The two modes: naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah and naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm were forwarded by the jurists as they were directly related to the fiqh. The naskh was alleged to have worked within and between the sources, as they could not solve the seeming contradiction, though being informed of the dictum: "al-jama' yamna' al-naskh" (reconciliation rules out naskh).(25)

~ Notes and References ~
  1. Encydopaedia of Islam (4 vols.), London, 1924, vol. 4, P. 1655.
  2. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, Cairo, 1352/1933. According to Khatib Baghdadi, Abu Yusuf was the first person to compose a book on Usul Talrikh Baghdad (14 vols.), Beirut, n.d., vol. 4, p. 246. According to Schacht, "The statement of Khatib Baghdadi, that Abu Yusuf was the first to compose books on the theory Of law on the basis of the doctrine of Abu Hanifah, is not confirmed by the old sources". "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence", Oxford, 1929, p. 133.
  3. Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist (2 vols.), London, 1970, vol. 1, p. 506.
  4. Shafi’i, al-Risalah, Cairo, 1358/1939.
  5. Saidullah Qazi, Principles of Muslim Jurisprudence, Lahore, 1981, p.2; al-Karakhi's Usul is published as a supplement to al-Dabusi's Tasts al-Nazar, Cairo, n.d., quoted by Shehaby, N., "'illah and Qiyas in early Islamic legal theory", J.A.O.S./, 1982, p. 27.
  6. Khudari, Usul al-fiqh, Beirut, 1969, p. 10.
  7. Sarakhsi, Usul (2 vol.), Haiderabad, 1372/1952, vol. 2, pp. 53-8.
  8. Zaid, M., al-Naskh fi’l Qur’an al-Karim (2 vols.), Cairo, 1383/1963, vol. 1, p. 82.
  9. Usul al-Jassas (Manuscript Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Cairo), fol. 139b.
  10. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Athar, Haiderabad, 1355/1936, p. 14; Jassas, Ahkam, vol. 2, p. 425.
  11. Shaybani, Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir, ed., M. Khadduri, Maryland, 1966, p. 94.
  12. A. Rippen, Naskh al-Quran and the problem of early Tafsir Texts, Bulletin, S.O.A.S. Nov. 1984, p. 25; Malik, Muwa'tta’, vol. 1, p. 299, vol. 2, p. 765.
  13. Hamadhani, Al-I’tibar Matba'al-Andulus, Hims, 1386/1986, p. 50.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 115a..
  16. Ibid.
  17. Al-Risalah, p. 106.
  18. Usu1 al-Jassas, fol. 152a.
  19. Ghazzali, Mustafa (2 vols.), Bulaq, 1322/1904, vol. 2, p. 125. Also see Tabari's Tafsir on al-Qur'an, II:106.
  20. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 127b.
  21. Usul, vol. 2, p. 81.
  22. Tafsir, vol. 7, p. 30.
  23. Usul al-Jassas, fol.143a.
  24. Usul, vol. 2, p. 12.
  25. I’tibar, p. 6.



-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 15 August 2008 at 6:10am
Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Br there is a difference of opinion among some scholar as to whether these verses actually abrogate other verses. And there certainly is an Islamic science about this matter so denying that it even exists is ridiculous.

I dont know accurate this is in presenting the views of the hanafi madhhab, its opinionated and draws many conclusions about the significance [or otherwise] of various subject matter rather than simply prsenting facts or events....but the point is made i think.
 
Rami:
 
Are you suggesting to Ron, that indeed certain verses have been abrogated? The Nasih, Mansukh etc can be applied to ahadith or even other matters of fiqh . . . But not the Qur'an.
 
For e.g Mutah . . . it was practiced by certain ppl during Prophet Muhammad's time, and until Allah revealed anything about it - he remained silent. But later, Mutah was abolished i.e. abrogated. This cannot be said about Quranic verses.
 
Like Minuteman correctly gives the e.g of Alcohol . . . all 3 verses are still just as valid, and do not at all contradict. In one place, Allah asks us to stay away from Alcohol - that is the preferred scenario. But does that mean no muslim will ever get drunk? No . . . which is why, the other verse still applies i.e. even if you are drunk, atleast do not approach prayer. No abrogation here. . . just 2 verses about Alcohol, essentially saying the same thing . . . but in different scenarios.
 
What you have said about the Quran bieng revealed in parts is correct, that was to allow ppl to make an easy, gradual transition . . . but strictly speaking in terms of the Quran, one cannot say that verses abrogate each other. (abrogate = annulment, abolition, cancellation)
 
PS: Since one is explaining to a non-muslim, I dont think going into detailed explanations like 'Hanafi Madhab' etc helps much. Its like, explaining astro-physics to a Marketing student. An exaggerated analogy, I agree. . . but u get my point. I think what Non-Muslims want to know through this question is whether or not they can deduce that the Quran has loopholes etc. Also, I appreciate the article you posted, but it can be tedious at times to go thru a lengthy document, esp when one is short of time, yet still wishes to know the crux. It would be nice if you could in a para or two just give the crux of the article . However, its very helpful to have the original doc/link there, for authencity/references sake . . . so do post a link. Jazakallah.


-------------
"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."


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 15 August 2008 at 8:25pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by Chrysalis

 
Rami:
 
Are you suggesting to Ron, that indeed certain verses have been abrogated? The Nasih, Mansukh etc can be applied to ahadith or even other matters of fiqh . . . But not the Qur'an.


Sister you as an unqualified person have no say in the matter, i am not presenting my personal views here but that of the madhhabs. The article clearly states that the Hanafi madhhab as well as the shafii madhhab and by extension the maliki as well as the hanbali [since as the article points out Imam shafii was the "father" of jurisprudence, although the opinions of the later two need to be confirmed] all believed this was the case but differed on its applicability.

Essentially its a matter of history now not personnel opinion. The article even points out the sahabah themselves believed this was the case...

"A text search in Sahih Bukhari turned this up:
حدثنا عياش: حدثنا عبد الأعلى: حدثنا عبيد الله، عن نافع، عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما:
قرأ: {فدية طعام مسكين}. قال: هي منسوخة
Ibn Umar Radhi Allahu `anhuma recited (surat ul baqarah 184) and said: This is mansookh" [i didnt do the search].
 
For e.g Mutah . . . it was practiced by certain ppl during Prophet Muhammad's time, and until Allah revealed anything about it - he remained silent. But later, Mutah was abolished i.e. abrogated. This cannot be said about Quranic verses.
 
Why?

i think the only issue here is your perception of it being some sort of weakness or evidence of fallibility, its no more so than allah commanding something in the Bible or Torah then abrogating it in the Quran. Did he make a mistake? couldn't he make up his mind the first time around?....etc

authubillah.

The Quran isnt simply a book and you need to understand that sister, you are objectifying the issue rather than looking at it's reality.

Like Minuteman correctly gives the e.g of Alcohol . . . all 3 verses are still just as valid, and do not at all contradict.


This is only your assumption that abrogation means contradiction, when you look at the reality of what was occurring on the ground [as the military adage goes] it is a totally different picture.

In one place, Allah asks us to stay away from Alcohol - that is the preferred scenario. But does that mean no muslim will ever get drunk? No . . . which is why, the other verse still applies i.e. even if you are drunk, atleast do not approach prayer.


Sister you know as well as i do that the context of the verse 'do not approach prayer while drunk' was prior to alcohol being banned and clearly implied you can still drink, then latter on Allah said dont drink at all, yes it is still valid and applicable [in terms of the wisdom and knowledge it contains] no one is arguing that but it isnt simply a matter of Allah contradicting himself he was taking people away from something not good for them step by step similar to how alcoholism is treated today.

That is the reality on the ground, you have to see it as if Allah is talking to the people and helping them not some words in a book.

What you have said about the Quran bieng revealed in parts is correct, that was to allow ppl to make an easy, gradual transition . . . but strictly speaking in terms of the Quran, one cannot say that verses abrogate each other. (abrogate = annulment, abolition, cancellation)
 
well we can discuss the use of the word abrogation to represent naskh wa mansukh and say something is lost in translation i wont argue with you there since it is generally the case with all phrases being translated into English but naskh does exist although in the arabic sense Smile

PS: Since one is explaining to a non-muslim, I dont think going into detailed explanations like 'Hanafi Madhab' etc helps much. Its like, explaining astro-physics to a Marketing student. An exaggerated analogy, I agree. . . but u get my point. I think what Non-Muslims want to know through this question is whether or not they can deduce that the Quran has loopholes etc. Also, I appreciate the article you posted, but it can be tedious at times to go thru a lengthy document, esp when one is short of time, yet still wishes to know the crux. It would be nice if you could in a para or two just give the crux of the article . However, its very helpful to have the original doc/link there, for authencity/references sake . . . so do post a link. Jazakallah.


Thank you for taking the time to explain the matter usually people just scream and shout at you here LOL

I agree the article is in depth but i dont doubt ron's intellectual capacity to understand most of it, i wouldn't have posted this had i thought he wasn't an educated person. Also i think there is far to much dumbing down of Islam to the point where the dumbed down version people are now claiming is the norm and no one is being exposed to its real depth, so even if people don't understand this they should at least see that Islamic scholarship has real depth and isn't as simplistic as 'this hadith said this' ergo Islam says what the hadith says and everyone is capable of deducing fatwah from the quran and sunnah.

You also could have waited untill you had time to read it LOL



-------------
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.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 15 August 2008 at 9:19pm
 
 Please indicate one or two verses of the Quran which are now abrogated, which stand abrogated. Then this matter will be discussed in some detail. Until then nobody will believe the abrogation story.  The Madhahib may have discussed the subject of abrogation  and I have myself read one book (long ago) on this subject by Ibne Hazm r.a.
 
  Let us see even one verse which is in the Quran and considered abrogated. Thanks. And let us not get hot when discussing this sensitive subject. It is of the prime importance for all of us. So go gently over it. More thanks in advance.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 15 August 2008 at 9:27pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheen

when the argument is presented that the hanafi and shafii madhhab hold such a belief you as an individual no longer have the luxury of calling the issue a story.

A simple question br, do you fail to see the significance of the hadith found in sahih bukhari of ibn umar?

i quoted the arabic so if you cant read it it literally says "mansookh".


-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 1:46pm
 : "Ibn Umar Radhi Allahu `anhuma recited (surat ul baqarah 184) and said: This is mansookh"
 
Verse 184 of Surah Baqarah:
[Pickthal 2:184] (Fast) a certain number of days; and (for) him who is sick among you, or on a journey, (the same) number of other days; and for those who can afford it there is a ransom: the feeding of a man in need - but whoso doeth good of his own accord, it is better for him: and that ye fast is better for you if ye did but know" -
 
This is what I found in response:
 
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Hadith 6.34:
 
"Narrated Ata: That he heard Ibn `Abbas reciting the Divine Verse:-- ""And for those who can fast they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day.."" (2.184) Ibn `Abbas said, ""This Verse is not abrogated, but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting)."
 
 
[Pickthal 17:36] "(O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked."
 
As an unqualified person, it is all the more incumbent upon me to question what I am told . . . and verify it. The difference b/w Islam and 'clerical' religions is that, an average person does have a say in the matter.
 
Like Ron mentioned,
[Pickthal 2:106]" Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"
 
This verse is referring to previous scriptures, i.e. Torah, Injeel, Zaboor. . . in the place of which Allah revealed the Qur'an, better and similar. . . and even for that Allah says 'nothing of our revelation do we abrogate'.
 
 
 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by rami

Sister you as an unqualified person have no say in the matter, i am not presenting my personal views here but that of the madhhabs.
If "Islam for non-Muslins" is restricted to "qualified persons", maybe I should have posted my question in a different section.  I am very interested to hear as many personal views as possible, in addition to scholarly opinions.
 
I also didn't realize this was going to be a contentious question.  Abrogation is certainly used by anti-Muslims as the basis for all sorts of attacks against Islam, but I thought there would be a straightforward answer here.  I hope my question does not create hostility.
 
It would help me to understand if those who believe in abrogation would provide some specific examples.  What verses have been abrogated, and which "better" verses replace them?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 2:40pm
One of the examples of 'alleged' abrogations is Surah Baqarah, verse 184. I later edited my post to include it.
 
Verse 184 says that in expiation of missing a fast, a who can afford it, should feed a person in need, for every fast missed/or should make up a replacement fast. The verse mentions both the sick, and those on a journey.
 
Later in verse 185 :
[Pickthal 2:185] The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be thankful.
 
Hence people suggest, that because the later verse speaks only of expiation by a replacement fast, and does not mention 'feeding a needy' . . . the previous verse is abrogated.
 
However, others (such as Ibn Abbas) are of the view (which I agree with) that the second verse is not an abrogation. And that the previous verse is still applicable to the elderly and sick - who are in a fragile state that does not allow them to make up fasts, even later. Thus, if they can afford it, they should feed the needy.
 
Despite talking about feeding the needy, Allah still says in Verse 184, that 'if ye fast is better for you if ye did but know' . . . it sets the grounds for the next verse, verse 185 that says 'let him fast the month'. Just because Allah did not repeat something He already mentioned in the previous verse (i.e. feeding the needy) does not mean that part got abrogated. And still applies to those who cannot fast at all.
 
Verse 185 ends by saying 'He does not desire for you difficulty, and (He desires) that you should complete the number'
 
Which means Allah wishes us to fast - yet does not desire difficulty on us.
 
Hence, as long as it is not a difficulty (i.e. person is not sick) , he should complete the number - rather than going for the first option of feeding the needy. But is the person has a difficulty, that Allah does not desire,  and cannot make up fasts - he should feed the poor.
 
What is abrogative about it?


-------------
"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."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Hence people suggest, that because the later verse speaks only of expiation by a replacement fast, and does not mention 'feeding a needy' . . . the previous verse is abrogated.
The previous verse??  I totally agree, it makes no sense whatsoever for Allah to reveal a verse and then change His mind, literally in the next breath! (assuming Allah breathes Smile)
 
I await other examples with interest...


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 5:12pm
 Ron you have said what I said long ago. We should observe the time difference between the revelation of the two verses 2:184 and 2:185. It may be only a few hours or a few days. How could it be possible that Allah would amend a verse so quickly.
 
 I also have some doubt about the order of revelation of the two verses. It is very likely that the verse 2:185 was revealed long before verse 2:184. But the prophet wisely put the latest verse before the older one. i.e. always obey the last order.  (I will then explain the meaning of things)
 
 So far, I have yet to see any abrogated verse in the Quran. Does it mean that there is only one (doubtful) abrogated verse in the Quran?  Surely not.
 
 I know very well from the writings of the scholars that some people had about 500 abrogated verses. Some others had about 150 verses. Nobody knew for certainity. Later as the matter became understood (after discussions), new scholars found that there were about 50 verses. The number was reduced to only 5 abrogated verses during the time of Shah Wali ullah Dehlavi. He was a great scholar of some repute and a Mujaddid (reformer) of the century (12th century).  (More soon, but please bring some abrogated verse here...)


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 5:28pm
 Even Maudoodi sahib believed in the abrogation. He suggested the abrogation of the part of verse 2:184 by verse 2:185. But later he realised that he would be in trouble about that abrogation (about believing in abrogation), he changed his wording and said that the order of expiation has been taken back in verse 2:185. That means he tried to avoid the word abrogation and said the facility has been taken back.
 
 That was all wrong too because it appeared that the verse 2:185 may have been revealed first i.e. before verse 2:184 and it was advised to Muslims to fast in the month of ramadhan as a voluntary basis,. That was before the fasting became compulsory vide verse 2:184. And the Muslims used to fast (Nafl) during the month of Ramadhan. But later the verse 2:184 was revealed and the fasting became compulsory.
 
 
 It may all be wrong (the above idea). It is agreed by all that the facility of verse 2:184 (expiation=Fidyah) is still allowed. If that is cancelleld (abrogated) no one can miss a fast, the old people and the pregnant ladies all will have to fast. If expiation part is abrogated then under what other verse the very old people will expiate? There is no other verse in the Quran allowing the Fidyah.
 
 Chaysalis had done well to understand the things. We have the original word of God (Quran) with us. WE need not just rely on the reports of very old scholars and go to sleep. There is the necessity to remain awake.
 
 Please also remember that the advice to fast is for those who feel hardship. It is advised to them that if they fast it is better for them. That advice is not for the sick and those in journey. The Muslims generally extend and apply that advice to the travellors also. That is not right. That advice is only for those who want to avoid fast by giving Fidyah (expiation).
 
 For the sick and those in journey,it is clear order to fast in later days ( in other days later).
 


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 7:04pm
Originally posted by minuteman

That was all wrong too because it appeared that the verse 2:185 may have been revealed first i.e. before verse 2:184 ...

I don't understand how that can be.  I know that the Quran was not revealed all at once and not in the same order that it appears now (which seems odd to me too -- why would anyone change the order of the Suras?); but I had always assumed that at least each sura would be revealed intact, all at once and with the verses in the proper order.
 
Now you seem to be saying that Muhammad recited Sura 2, and then come back the next day or the next month and say, "Oh excuse me, I left out a verse between 183 and 185"?  That is almost as hard to imagine as abrogation. Why did the Quran need so much editing? Confused


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 11:23pm
 
 Ron, That is not the way. The Quran was revealed in a certain series of verses, one after the other over a period of 23 years. The prophet had ordered the final placement of verses as they were revealed. Every time a verse was revealed, the prophet told the scribes where it belonged and where it was to be written. There was no Quran as we see it today.
 
 It was not even compiled. But it was present in written form, on wood and leather and bones etc. As I said, the verse when revealed, the prophet told the scribes where that verse belonged and where it was to be written or placed. So the matter progressed.
 
 I had suggested that the verse 2:185 may have been revealed much earlier than the verse 2:184. It is a good possibility. If it became true then the question of verse 2:185 abrogating the verse 2:184 will not arise because a verse which is revealed earlier cannot abrogate the verse which was revealed later. That matter has to be examined.
 
 So please do not think that the prophet arranged verses in a certain order and next day came back and said that the order / arrangement was wrong. That is not the case. The revelation of Quran was not yet complete. It was continued for a long time. I hope I made it clear.  mm


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 16 August 2008 at 11:46pm

I don't understand how that can be.  I know that the Quran was not revealed all at once and not in the same order that it appears now (which seems odd to me too -- why would anyone change the order of the Suras?); but I had always assumed that at least each sura would be revealed intact, all at once and with the verses in the proper order.
 
The order of the Surahs is divinely inspired, True, it is not in the exact same chronological order it was revealed in, but the current arrangement is still according to how Prophet said it should be.
 
As to why the order of the Surahs was changed, there was surely wisdom behind it, and arguing as to why it is the way it is, really doesnt matter. Thats because the words, verses and the message is still the same, in the exact way it was revealed.
 
Also, some surahs were revealed in one sitting . . . while other, lengthier ones, with details and commandments that required a gradual transition (such as Surah Baqarah) were revealed over a span of time, not in one sitting. As for the verses, I dont think (anybody with more info on this, pl elaborate) anybody changed the sequence of the verses. Just the surahs. . . but of this I'm not entirely sure, bcz I couldnt find any source commenting on the sequence of verses.
 
 
 
Why did the Quran need so much editing? Confused
 
Surprisingly, there wasnt any 'editing' involved in the Qur'an - which is why, even the alleged abrogative verses have not been left out (edited) but have been included exactly in the way they were revealed. Rearranging the order hardly constitutes editing. Editing implies there were verses included, and left out - when this was not the case. According to Sahih Bukhari, Usman the 4rth Caliph and companion of the Prophet, when compiling the Quran said that he would never shift anything of the Quran from its orginal position (i.e. how Prophet Muhammad said it should be)
 
Here is an excerpt I came across on a website, regarding the chronological order of the Qur'an:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm - http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
 

2.   Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/new_reply_form.asp?M=Q&PID=110183&PN=2&TR=16 -


-------------
"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."


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 12:16am
Bi simillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by Chrysalis

[quote] 
This is what I found in response:


That isnt the issue sister i wasn't quoting it to prove ibn umar was right or wrong about abrogation [insha allah you know the standing of ibn umar in this community] i was quoting it to establish that the sahabah themselfs discussed this issue and it wasnt invented later on.

the only thing you have established is that there was ikhtilaf [diference of opinion about which verses abrogated which] among the sahbah themselfs regarding this issue so its just beyond comprahension how anyone can now say the issue doesnt exist it never existed and its all made up.

[Pickthal 2:106]" Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"

this is a conditional statment sister, its a statment of logic. "nothing of revelation do we abrogate or cause to be forgotton" [it is conditional to this rule] "BUT we bring in place one better or the like thereof."

which literally meanse we dont abrogate anything untill we replace it with something similar or better, it doesnt say we dont abrogate anything as you seem to think. Its also an argument for why the laws of the Quran are eternal since they are the last revelation from allah which he will not abrogate with anything else. which is exactly what the Ulumah have said that some commandments within the Quran in there original context [not as they apply in latter times] are temporary in nature.




-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 12:40am
Originally posted by rami




the only thing you have established is that there was ikhtilaf [diference of opinion about which verses abrogated which] among the sahbah themselfs regarding this issue so its just beyond comprahension how anyone can now say the issue doesnt exist it never existed and its all made up.
 
I never insisted that this issue never existed . . . apparently, it very obviousley does . . . which is why the Sahabah discussed it, or Ron brought it up.
 
If I have realised something, it is that our 'ikhtilaf' may very well perhaps be on how we interpret the 'abrogation' in reference to teh Quran. Infact, one also has to take into consideration how non-muslims view the issue of abrogation. To you or to me, it does not mean that the Quran is nauzubillah imperfect, but when a nonmuslim asks (and I'm not pointing at Ron here, just bieng general) , thier misconception is that this implies that the Quran has loopholes, and due to the abrogation phenomenon, many verses can be ignored or considered nullified. (and no, I would never customize Islam to make it 'pleasing' to a nonmuslim, or to myself)
 
If by abrogation, you or whoever says means 'cancellation' or 'nullify' then I disagree . . . because I agree with the view that the verses still stand today, and apply - just in a different scenario. For e.g. when Allah asks the muslims not to approach prayer when drunk , to me, if we make a venn diagram of the verses, this part still applies today i.e. Do not approach prayers when drunk - its still included in the 'set' of 'drinking is haraam'. It cannot be said that the verse implies its okay to drink, it doesnt. ( I know this verse was revealed before the others)
 
[Pickthal 2:106]" Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"

Depends again on the interpretation. Scholars say that the words 'ayaat' (which some interpret as meaning quranic ayaat) may very well refer to the revelation of the previous scriptures. Hence this would very well apply to the previous scriptures and not the Quranic verses themselves. Hence the 'better' that Allah brought in place of the abrogated scriptures, is the Quran.




-------------
"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."


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 12:45am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by Ron Webb

The previous verse??  I totally agree, it makes no sense whatsoever for Allah to reveal a verse and then change His mind, literally in the next breath! (assuming Allah breathes Smile)
 
I await other examples with interest...


that isn't what occurred, a verse is essentially a command, advice or ruling from Allah regarding a specific issue that was occurring at the time. Sometimes one verse would be revealed at others two or three or more or even an entire chapter its all different. the prophet towards the end of his life sat down with Gabriel and organised all the verses into the order we have them in today, he used to also recite the quran in its entirety with Gabriel once a year. So the order we have now is itself divinely sanctioned but it is not the order of revelation.

For example the beginning of one surah [as we have now] would be revealed, then some years would pass and in that time other revelations would come down belonging to other chapters in various orders, then the remainder of that initial chapter would be revealed. They came down in response to and as events where unfolding not as a book which had no relevance to the life's of the Arabs at the time....do you see the subtle difference?

If "Islam for non-Muslins" is restricted to "qualified persons", maybe I should have posted my question in a different section.  I am very interested to hear as many personal views as possible, in addition to scholarly opinions.


You misunderstood what i was referring to, people are welcome to post there own personnel opinions regarding the matter that isnt what i was objecting to, they have no right to say something isnt a part of islam or doesnt exist when Islams four schools of thought [the only authorities in Islam] have developed an entire scinece of the issue. so basically they can speak for themselves but not for "Islam" and both chrysalis and minuteman have overstepped there bounds in this matter.

You asked if this issue existed or was a fabrication well "officially" it does exist in all of islams legal schools and there is an entire science based around this issue.

It is recorded in historical works that Ali [ra] the prophets cousin compiled a Quran in which he arranged the verses in the order of there revelation, this work was used by the earlier scholars in there various works in the science of abrogation but the Quran in its entirety has not survived to this day, we partially have that order but since it became less relied upon over the years [for various reasons such as reliance on the works based of this Quran as apposed to it specifically] it was lost, i dont know the exact reason it may have been that the libraries that contained copies where themselves destroyed in various wars.

 
I also didn't realize this was going to be a contentious question.  Abrogation is certainly used by anti-Muslims as the basis for all sorts of attacks against Islam, but I thought there would be a straightforward answer here.  I hope my question does not create hostility.
 
I dont argue the individual but the point and any emotion you may perceive is entirely directed at that not the individual. The anti muslim arguments are typically hypocritical in nature since they can easily be turned against the bible and its abrogation of the Torah [eg the day of sabath] or similarly the torah against the book revealed to Abraham [pbuh] and we can go back in time to all past revelations which abrogate what came before them.

It would help me to understand if those who believe in abrogation would provide some specific examples.  What verses have been abrogated, and which "better" verses replace them?


if you want to get into particulars this i can not help you with since i am not qualified in the science of abrogation and any opinion you see should be understood as the opinion of the individuals posting them which they are free to do.

Check this site out and click on Quran,

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/



-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:02am
Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem


If "Islam for non-Muslins" is restricted to "qualified persons", maybe I should have posted my question in a different section.  I am very interested to hear as many personal views as possible, in addition to scholarly opinions.


You misunderstood what i was referring to, people are welcome to post there own personnel opinions regarding the matter that isnt what i was objecting to, they have no right to say something isnt a part of islam or doesnt exist when Islams four schools of thought [the only authorities in Islam] have developed an entire scinece of the issue. so basically they can speak for themselves but not for "Islam" and both chrysalis and minuteman have overstepped there bounds in this matter.

 
You agreed that there is 'ikhtilaf' amongst scholars as to the nature of quranic abrogations, which means basically they have an ikhtilaf with any school of thought that talks about abrogations. Pray tell, how is agreeing with the opposite side regarding this 'ikhtilaf' overstepping boundaries? I did not make-up the hadith of Ibn Abbas, nor did I come up with the 'interpretation' of the verse in surah baqarah (regarding abrogation).
 
As for the schools of thought, ahadith of the Sahabah or the Prophet regarding the issue of abrogation would be considered more reliable compared to any later discussion of the issue. Which is why I tried to go to the source, i.e. ahadith. If you have any regarding this, kindly do post and enlighten us on the issue - if you wish to (meaning I dont 'expect' you to do so, just because I ask, because like you rightly mentioned earlier, I should be reading up in my own good time)
 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:13am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

can you quote the legal fatwah of any scholar you follow which says abrogation itself does not exist?

there is a difference between whether or not abrogation existed and which verses abrogated which.

Originally posted by Chrysalis


As for the schools of thought, ahadith of the Sahabah or the Prophet regarding the issue of abrogation would be considered more reliable compared to any later discussion of the issue. Which is why I tried to go to the source, i.e. ahadith. If you have any regarding this, kindly do post and enlighten us on the issue - if you wish to (meaning I dont 'expect' you to do so, just because I ask, because like you rightly mentioned earlier, I should be reading up in my own good time)


There opinions as indaviduals [had they been alive today] are certainly worth more but what you are gong to i.e the ahadith is not there opinions it is pieces of evidence which need to be investigated and you can not quote a single hadith to refute any of the madhhabs.

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.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:19am

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).

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm - http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
 
6.    THE THEORY OF ABROGATION

Question:

Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation, i.e. they believe that certain earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses revealed later. Does this imply that God made a mistake and later on corrected it?

Answer:

1.    Two different interpretations

The Glorious Qur’an says in the following verse:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"
[Al-Qur’an 2:106]

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ayat which means ‘signs’ or ‘verses’ and which can also mean ‘revelations’. This verse of the Qur’an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a.    The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur’an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (swt) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur’an.

b.  If we consider that the Arabic word ayat in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur’an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur’an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur’an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur’an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur’an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believe that these verses contradict each other.

Let us analyze a few such examples.

2.    Produce a recital like the Qur’an / 10 Surahs / 1 Surah:

Some pagan Arabs alleged that the Qur’an was forged by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Allah (swt) challenges these Arabs in the following verse of Surah Al-Isra:

"Say: If the whole of Mankind and Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support."
[Al-Qur’an 17:88]

Later the challenge was made easy in the following verse of Surah Al-Hud:

"Or they may say, "He forged it." Say, "Bring ye then ten Surahs forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsover ye can, other than Allah, if ye speak the truth!’."
[Al-Qur’an 11:13]

It was made easier in the following verse of Surah Yunus:

"Or do they say, "He forged it"? Say: "Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!’."
[Al-Qur’an 10:38]

Finally in Surah Al-Baqarah, Allah (swt) further simplified the challenge:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.

But if ye cannot – and of a surety ye cannot – then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones – which is prepared for those who reject faith".
[Al-Qur’an 2:23-24]

Thus Allah (swt) made the challenges progressively easier. The progressively revealed verses of the Qur’an first challenged the pagans to produce a book like the Qur’an, then challenged them to produce ten Surahs (chapters) like those in the Qur’an, then one Surah and finally it challenges them to produce one Surah somewhat similar (mim mislihi) to the Qur’anic Surahs. This does not mean that the later verses that were revealed i.e. of Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verses 23 and 24 contradict the earlier three verses. Contradiction implies mentioning two things that cannot be possible simultaneously, or cannot take place simultaneously.

The earlier verses of the Qur’an i.e. the abrogated verses are still the word of God and the information contained in it is true to this day. For instance the challenge to produce a recital like the Qur’an stands to this day. Similarly the challenge to produce ten Surahs and one Surah exactly like the Qur’an also holds true and the last challenge of producing one surah somewhat similar to the Qur’an also holds true. It does not contradict the earlier challenges, but this is the easiest of all the challenges posed by the Qur’an. If the last challenge cannot be fulfilled, the question of anyone fulfilling the other three more difficult challenges does not arise.

Suppose I speak about a person that he is so dumb, that he would not be able to pass the 10th standard in school. Later I say that he would not be able to pass the 5th standard, and further say that he would not be able to pass even the 1st standard. Finally I say that he is so dull that he would not even be able to pass K.G. i.e. kindergarten. One has to pass kindergarten before one can be admitted to school. What I am stating is that the person is so dull as to be unable to pass even kindergarten. My four statements do not contradict each other, but my last statement i.e. the person would not be able to pass the kindergarten is sufficient to indicate the intelligence of that person. If a person cannot even pass kindergarten, the question of him passing the first standard or 5th or 10th, does not arise.

3.    Gradual prohibition of intoxicants

Another example of such verses is that related to gradual prohibition of intoxicants. The first revelation of the Qur’an to deal with intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Baqarah:

"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling say: ‘In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit’."
[Al-Qur’an 2:219]

The next verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants is the following verse from Surah Nisa:

"O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say" [Al-Qur’an 4:43]

The last verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Al-Maidah:

"O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."
[Al-Qur’an 5:90]

The Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

The prohibition of intoxicants was revealed in three stages. The first revelation only mentioned that in the intoxicants there is great sin and some profit but the sin is greater than the profit. The next revelation prohibited praying in an intoxicated state, indicating that one should not consume intoxicants during the day, since a Muslim has to pray five times a day. This verse does state that when one is not praying at night one is allowed to consume intoxicants. It means one may have or one may not have. The Qur’an does not comment on it. If this verse had mentioned that one is allowed to have intoxicants while not praying then there would have been a contradiction. Allah (swt) chose words appropriately. Finally the total prohibition of intoxicants at all times was revealed in Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 90.

This clearly indicates that the three verses do not contradict each other. Had they been contradicting, it would not have been possible to follow all the three verses simultaneously. Since a Muslim is expected to follow each and every verse of the Qur’an, only by following the last verse i.e. of Surah Maidah (5:90), he simultaneously agrees and follows the previous two verses.

Suppose I say that I do not live in Los Angeles. Later I say that I do not live in California. Finally I say, I do not live in the United States of America. This does not imply that these three statements contradict each other. Each statement gives more information than the previous statement. The third statement includes the information contained in the first two statements. Thus, only by saying that I do not live in the United States of America, it is obvious, that I also do not live in California nor New York. Similarly since consuming alcohol is totally prohibited, it is obvious that praying in an intoxicated state is also prohibited and the information that in intoxicants is "great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than profit" also holds true.

4.     Qur’an does not contain any contradictions

The theory of abrogation does not imply that there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, since it is possible to follow all the verses of the Qur’an at the same time.

If there is a contradiction in the Qur’an, then it cannot be the word of Allah (swt).

"Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (contradictions)."

[Al-Qur’an 4:82]

 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 17 August 2008 at 1:26am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

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


-------------
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.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date 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."


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date 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 - 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."


Posted By: rami
Date 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.
 



-------------
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.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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 - 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.


Posted By: rami
Date 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.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date 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.


Posted By: rami
Date 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.


Posted By: halfalife
Date 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.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 18 August 2008 at 7:11pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by halfalife

The quran does not contradict itself, so the reality is there is no need whatsoever for the abrogations.........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.


you are superimposing your christian history onto the Islamic one and assuming events all developed along the same lines. Our scholars did not commit the same atrocities as yours in the name of religion in fact you will be hard pressed finding similar atrocities committed by any scholar since they never held power throughout Muslim history but Dynastic rulers similar to the Roman empire in its decline did.

We never developed anything like your church or pope and they never pretended to forgive the sins of man on behalf of God or sell tickets to heaven......i could go on and on about the distinction between both civilisations and why you cant jump the gun and assume simply becouse things sound the same, the bottom line is Muslims behave/react differently to Christians [or Hindu's, Buddhists....etc] in the same situation becouse they have been conditioned to perceive things differently just like other religions or societies condition the individual to think along there lines of there teachings [which is why i have always made statements like western or new muslim].


-------------
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.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 18 August 2008 at 8:34pm
Originally posted by halfalife

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.
 
 I agree to what is said above 100 %. In fact it has described the real Islamic point of view in a very good manner. Nothing could be said in a better way. I am thankful to the opinion of halfalife.
 
 There was no need for the scholars to wander into supposed fields. They thought if Allah has said Himself that He does not abrogate any verse but he brings a better one in its place. So they thought that Allah must have abrogated some verses. So they started looking for the abrogated verses in the Quran.
 
 Which ever verse of the Quran they could not understand or reconcile, they put it down as the abrogated verse. There was no proof for that from the Quran. There was no list in the Quran of the abrogated verses. There was no list in Hadith from the words of the prophet s.a.w.s. So why they took upon themselves the duty of abrogating or cancelling any verses of the Quran??
 
 What is more, those people built a complete science on the subject of abrogation.

They invented rules for the abrogation and classified some verses as abrogated only for the actions. Some verses were to be recited but not to be active any more. Some other were abrogated for the meaning only. There was a complete science on this subject. I cannot recall all the rules they invented. There was nothing about that (those rules) in the Quran and Sunnah. It was only in their minds. They felt that it should be like that.

 ( More later, Insha Allah)

 


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 18 August 2008 at 9:37pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Br its better that you admit that you have not understood the subject clearly rather than to criticise the likes of Ibn Umar, Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam shafii.

It is also ignorant to question these individuals and ask why they did something, critisise them for it and not even have looked at what it is they did or said on the subject or the evidance they produced. if any person can do a text search of bukhari and come up with a clear hadith for its existance what of the scholars who had access to volumes of works and lived not 150 years after hijrah.

until i posted my original reply i doubt you even knew there was such an Islamic science so please can we be reasonable in our assumptions and conclusions.


-------------
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.


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 3:19am
Let us take a look at 3 supposed abrogated verses;
 
2:62 VERILY, those who became safe in faith (amanoo) as well as those who attained guidance (through the Jewish faith)( hadoo), and the Christians, and the Sabians    -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear is upon them, nor do they grief.
 
2:256 THERE SHALL BE no coercion in the faith.  Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the opressor and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
 
5:69 for, verily, those who have attained to faith as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Sabians,  and the Christians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - no fear is upon them, nor do they grief.
 
These verses are claimed to abrogate the above verses:
 
"3:85:
For, if one goes in search of a way other than self-surrender (with the goal of attaining eternal peace with Allah, in arabic islaam.), it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost.
 
3:86 How would God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and [after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them?  For, God does not guide such evildoing folk.
 
and;
 
 9:73 O PROPHET! Strive hard against the deniers of the truth and the hypocrites, and be adamant with them.  And [if they do not repent,] their goal shall be hell -and how vile a journey's end!
 
Like in this case again there is no need for abrogation whatsoever if we realise that hostility is only directed against the agressors (those who try to force others to leave their faith by opressing them and even killing them if they refuse to do so. (as was the case with the prophet and those with him). The prophet and the faithful did not get attacked because they were talking of attaining power or subjecting the world to their faith, they were attacked because they called to truths, things that went against the desires of the profiteers of falsehood (idolatry was and still is big money), so like before with the Pharao and all the other unjust tyrants throughout history, the situation came about where the unjust could not keep themselves from attacking the callers to  righteousness because their position of power came under threat by the numbers of people leaving the system of opression(idolatry) for the system of righteousness ....
And since the idolators wished to force the faithful to leave their faith and force their religion on them, it was justifiable for the faithful to turn it the other way around and impose their faith on them instead, read:
 
22:60 That (is so). And if one has retaliated to no greater extent than the "injury" he received, and is again set upon inordinately, Allah will help him: for Allah is One that blots out (sins) and forgives (again and again).
 
The issue was that alot of people wished to join the faith but were affraid of the persecution imposed by the leadership of the idolators (and their religious esteblishment).
 
110 : 1. when the Help of Allah comes and the Victory,

2. and thou dost see the people enter Allah.s Religion in crowds,

3. Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).

 
Allah is The (Ultimate) Righteous and The (ultimate) Inherritor and to Him is the destination, this means that  -injustice comes to an end everytime again, either by the doers of injustice leaving it and becoming just(er) or by them being destroyed along with it-...History testifies of this fact.
 
 And yes muslims like christians and jews are human too, with the same kind of human inclinations, desires and evils (deceptions)...in the light of us all being human let us not exclude our specific group from the possibility of being wrong, infact let us not think in terms of groups at all, but reason as individuals who have been given the basic ability to reason which is independent from the schematics and doctrines of others who put themselves forward as to be followed.........The prophet told that the muslims will do exactly the same things as those before (jews and christians)  and indeed, we can not escape being human afterall...we may differ in culture, tradition and temperment, but we can not escape the binding human factors like for instance the possibility of being terribly wrong.
 
Let me be clear about something, the evil lays in the striving of some to gain power.... and setting up a system to maintain control by the subjection of others through lies, distortions of religious texts and in some cases even the manipulation of historical events.
The jews and christians have done it before......But to no avail.
 


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 6:29am
Originally posted by rami



. if any person can do a text search of bukhari and come up with a clear hadith for its existance what of the scholars who had access to volumes of works and lived not 150 years after hijrah.

 
You misunderstand Brother, if you think that analysing what the Imams did, and considering them fallible, autmatically means that one is disrespecting them or not acknowledging thier contribution.
 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 7:58am

I'm not sure what disagreement remains here.  It seems like everyone agrees that there are no contradictions in the Quran, and I am satisfied with the explanation of abrogation -- essentially that the abrogated verse is not wrong but merely incomplete, just as the Quran itself was incomplete at that time.

I am surprised that rami imples that the Quran contains "flaws in logic", but since he (she?) has chosen not to elaborate I will not  push it here either.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 8:23am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I'm not sure what disagreement remains here.  It seems like everyone agrees that there are no contradictions in the Quran, and I am satisfied with the explanation of abrogation -- essentially that the abrogated verse is not wrong but merely incomplete, just as the Quran itself was incomplete at that time.

I am surprised that rami imples that the Quran contains "flaws in logic", but since he (she?) has chosen not to elaborate I will not  push it here either.

 
From what I understand, Rami was referring to the 'flaws in logic' of Dr.Zakir's explanation of abrogation. Not the Quran itself.
 
 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 9:06am
Embarrassed I guess I misread it.

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 8:11pm
 
 I will not present the post of rami here. I only want to tell all friends that scholars did well in their time. They were god fearing and capable. But they were not infallible. Where they did many good works, there may have been some mistakes too. Abu Hanifah, a great Imam of Fiqah, is respected by all. The intention is not to attack him.
 
 The wonders of the Quran did not end with Imam Abu Hanifah. We read the Quran for what purpose? If we are not to understand anything ourself then we should only read the works of Imam Abu Hanifah.
 
 Ron is again reading things in the wrong direction. When it is told that there is no abrogated verse in the Quran then Ron should believe that and not try to re-interpret the nature of abrogation.
 
 Halfalife has again done wonders. The presentation of the verses is very good and the rest of the writing of Halfalife is also examplary. I will soon comment on those verses of the Quran and show that there is no abrogation at all. But I need the abrogated verse along with the verse which is abrogating  and only one (pair) verses at a time. Let us see.
 
 We have to understand the meaning of Islam and we have to accommodate the people of the whole world. Not to keep the salvation (deliverance) to ourselves only, as some of the muslims are teaching nowadays.
 
 I may point out here just one thing of the present day muslim religious leaders. As I heard, they believe that any one who has not  recited the Kalimah is a Kaafir. I do not want to open a new debate. But I don't believe what is being said that all non-Kalimah fellows are Kaafirs.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 8:44pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

thank you chrysalis, yes that is what i meant.

You misunderstand Brother, if you think that analysing what the Imams did, and considering them fallible, automatically means that one is disrespecting them or not acknowledging their contribution.


if you are reffering to minutemans post then no i have not misunderstood he clearly disrespected them. 

ill refrain from exagerating anything,

There was no need for the scholars to wander into supposed fields.


this is sitting in judgment of there actions,

They thought if Allah has said Himself that He does not abrogate any verse but he brings a better one in its place. So they thought that Allah must have abrogated some verses. So they started looking for the abrogated verses in the Quran.


here he assumes to know what a sahabi [ibn umar] and the rest of Islams mujtahid imams all thought and goes on to assume what the basis of there actions are all without actually bothering to learn the science they left behind.

Which ever verse of the Quran they could not understand or reconcile,


here he assumes to know what they understood and did not understand.

There was no proof for that from the Quran.


Here he makes a blind statment about the usul they used along with the principles of tafsir which he more than likely has never learned so one can only conclude it must be above his level of understanding and knowledge.

There was no list in the Quran of the abrogated verses.


no one made the claim there was but it is a fact that sayidinah Ali compiled a Quran based on the order the verses where revealed, of which we have a partial copy [or the infomation is refrenced in various works i am not clear on that, either way the information exists] still surviving to this day.

There was no list in Hadith from the words of the prophet s.a.w.s.


i could easily ask, has he read all the ahadith there is in existance to be able to make such an absolute claim.

So why they took upon themselves the duty of abrogating or cancelling any verses of the Quran??


accuses them of inventing abrogation in which is the acusation of kufr [yes i know he didnt intend this] in its implications.

ergo this statment,

  What is more, those people built a complete science on the subject of abrogation.


who specifically are "those" people.

They invented rules for the abrogation and classified some verses as abrogated only for the actions. Some verses were to be recited but not to be active any more. Some other were abrogated for the meaning only. There was a complete science on this subject. I cannot recall all the rules they invented. There was nothing about that (those rules) in the Quran and Sunnah. It was only in their minds. They felt that it should be like that.


Besides the baseless acusations he desplays a complete and utter ignorance of the usul and sciences this ummah has relied upon for 1400 years [the very same science which the modern west is built upon eg the scientific method] and by holisticlly brushing it all aside places himself above every scholar, wali, sahhabi that has said anything on Islamic law.
 



-------------
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.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 19 August 2008 at 8:49pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

I must be psychic or something because i seem to have replied to your motivations even before you stated them...who knows

Originally posted by halfalife

 
And yes muslims like christians and jews are human too, with the same kind of human inclinations, desires and evils (deceptions)...in the light of us all being human let us not exclude our specific group from the possibility of being wrong, infact let us not think in terms of groups at all, but reason as individuals who have been given the basic ability to reason which is independent from the schematics and doctrines of others who put themselves forward as to be followed.........The prophet told that the muslims will do exactly the same things as those before (jews and christians)  and indeed, we can not escape being human afterall...we may differ in culture, tradition and temperment, but we can not escape the binding human factors like for instance the possibility of being terribly wrong.
 
Let me be clear about something, the evil lays in the striving of some to gain power.... and setting up a system to maintain control by the subjection of others through lies, distortions of religious texts and in some cases even the manipulation of historical events.
The jews and christians have done it before......But to no avail.
 



""you are superimposing your christian history onto the Islamic one and assuming events all developed along the same lines. Our scholars did not commit the same atrocities as yours in the name of religion in fact you will be hard pressed finding similar atrocities committed by any scholar since they never held power throughout Muslim history but Dynastic rulers similar to the Roman empire in its decline did.

We never developed anything like your church or pope and they never pretended to forgive the sins of man on behalf of God or sell tickets to heaven......i could go on and on about the distinction between both civilisations and why you cant jump the gun and assume simply becouse things sound the same, the bottom line is Muslims behave/react differently to Christians [or Hindu's, Buddhists....etc] in the same situation becouse they have been conditioned to perceive things differently just like other religions or societies condition the individual to think along there lines of there teachings [which is why i have always made statements like western or new muslim].""

Its a matter of history my friend, it has all been said and done and we didnt do what you assume.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 6:53am

Originally posted by rami

if you are reffering to minutemans post then no i have not misunderstood he clearly disrespected them.

This is really unfair, rami.  It is possible to disagree without being disrespectful.  In my opinion minuteman is one of the most respectful participants in these discussions.

this is sitting in judgment of there actions

Of course it is, just as you are sitting in judgement when you judge them to be correct or trustworthy or beyond question or whatever.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 7:15am
Originally posted by minuteman

Ron is again reading things in the wrong direction. When it is told that there is no abrogated verse in the Quran then Ron should believe that and not try to re-interpret the nature of abrogation.
Where is it told that there is no abrogating verse in the Quran?  It seems to me that al-Bakara 2:106 suggests that abrogation does happen, or at least can happen -- "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof."
 
I think the problem may be in translation. We are all in agreement that there can be no contradictions in the Quran; but as long as abrogation is understood to mean an extension or elaboration of a previous verse rather than a contradiction, then I see no difficulty.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 7:36am
Originally posted by rami

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

thank you chrysalis, yes that is what i meant.

You misunderstand Brother, if you think that analysing what the Imams did, and considering them fallible, automatically means that one is disrespecting them or not acknowledging their contribution.

 rami: if you are reffering to minutemans post then no i have not misunderstood he clearly disrespected them. 

ill refrain from exagerating anything,
 Why would I disrespect any scholar? But this business could be a cooked one about abrogation. I know the Shias have their own Hadith and Sunnis have their own. Think of how much different are the beliefs? It is such a long time ago that things were written and nobody knows who may have interefered with the texts. I respect all scholars. But I will always use my intellect too, Insha Allah.
 
 Instead of accusing me, why don't you please post any abrogated verse here now. Then we will come to know how much you have learned from those scholars. May be i missed the knowledge they spread in the world and you may have grabbed it. Then please come up with a few abrogated verses. And no use discussing the meaning of abrogation. Thanks.
There was no need for the scholars to wander into supposed fields.


   rami: this is sitting in judgment of there actions,

 

 Of course there is no judgement from me on the scholars. But you tell me if there was any Hadith (a saying of the prophet) in this regard that "Allah has abrogated some verses in the Quran by some other verses. So be careful about them"? Is there any such thing? If it is not there then tell me what was the need of assuming that some verses were abrogated? Why they took up the challenge. You please tell  me the reason.

They thought if Allah has said Himself that He does not abrogate any verse but he brings a better one in its place. So they thought that Allah must have abrogated some verses. So they started looking for the abrogated verses in the Quran.


   rami:here he assumes to know what a sahabi [ibn umar] and the rest of Islams mujtahid imams all thought and goes on to assume what the basis of there actions are all without actually bothering to learn the science they left behind.
  I am not a scholar. But I may have read more scholarly books on the subject. You tell me why those people started discussing and looking for the abrogated verses. Then some of them found about 500 such verses. The others had less number.
 
 Until some other scholars understood the problems and solved the situation and reduced the number of abrogated verses to five only in the time of Shah Waliuulah Dehlavi.
 
 Will you say that those who did that good work were also misguided and disrespectful to their senior scholars?.  No. Not at all. I have already told you that the wonders and miracles of the Quran are unlimited. The Quranic knowledge had not ascended on the old old scholars only. There were some left for the later people too.

Which ever verse of the Quran they could not understand or reconcile,


here he assumes to know what they understood and did not understand.

There was no proof for that from the Quran.


Here he makes a blind statment about the usul they used along with the principles of tafsir which he more than likely has never learned so one can only conclude it must be above his level of understanding and knowledge.

There was no list in the Quran of the abrogated verses.


no one made the claim there was but it is a fact that sayidinah Ali compiled a Quran based on the order the verses where revealed, of which we have a partial copy [or the infomation is refrenced in various works i am not clear on that, either way the information exists] still surviving to this day.

There was no list in Hadith from the words of the prophet s.a.w.s.


i could easily ask, has he read all the ahadith there is in existance to be able to make such an absolute claim.

So why they took upon themselves the duty of abrogating or cancelling any verses of the Quran??


accuses them of inventing abrogation in which is the acusation of kufr [yes i know he didnt intend this] in its implications.

ergo this statment,


  What is more, those people built a complete science on the subject of abrogation.


who specifically are "those" people.

They invented rules for the abrogation and classified some verses as abrogated only for the actions. Some verses were to be recited but not to be active any more. Some other were abrogated for the meaning only. There was a complete science on this subject. I cannot recall all the rules they invented. There was nothing about that (those rules) in the Quran and Sunnah. It was only in their minds. They felt that it should be like that.


Besides the baseless acusations he desplays a complete and utter ignorance of the usul and sciences this ummah has relied upon for 1400 years [the very same science which the modern west is built upon eg the scientific method] and by holisticlly brushing it all aside places himself above every scholar, wali, sahhabi that has said anything on Islamic law.
 

 
 I am not writing any more. I shall wait for your response and would like that you please present the case of some abrogated verse of the Quran and present it with some surety from yourself too in support of it. Thanks.  mm
 


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 9:05am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by minuteman

Ron is again reading things in the wrong direction. When it is told that there is no abrogated verse in the Quran then Ron should believe that and not try to re-interpret the nature of abrogation.
Where is it told that there is no abrogating verse in the Quran?  It seems to me that al-Bakara 2:106 suggests that abrogation does happen, or at least can happen -- "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof."
 
I think the problem may be in translation. We are all in agreement that there can be no contradictions in the Quran; but as long as abrogation is understood to mean an extension or elaboration of a previous verse rather than a contradiction, then I see no difficulty.
 
  You have presented the translation of the verse. It says "none of our revelation do we abrogate"  That means no verse is abrogated.
 
 It could also mean "None of the verses we abrogate (obliterate)..."  and further "And make it to be forgotten" that means you will not find it nor remember it. So why go looking for one in the Quran?
 
" But that we bring another one the better than it or equal to it." Ron also remember that the lines in the bible OT and NT are also verses (revealed earlier). Could they be abrogated or made to be forgotten and new verses better than those or equal to those revealed in the Quran? Could it be like that?


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 9:57am
"None of the verses we abrogate but [except] that we bring another one better than it".  In other words, Allah never abrogates a verse without providing an equal or better one.  (And by "better" I am assuming more comprehensive, more complete, not that the earlier one is wrong or inferior.)
 
Yes, it could refer to earlier revelations, but I see no reason to assume that.  Surely unless otherwise specfied, "our revelation" would mean the current revelation, i.e. the Quran, wouldn't it?
 
I think we have seen some examples of abrogated verses already.  The verse that forbids coming to prayer intoxicated is a good one.  A later verse forbids intoxication at any time, which is "better" (more comprehensive) than the earlier one, but it does not contradict it.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 1:40pm

Which of these 2 verses is better?

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 20 August 2008 at 9:45pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Originally posted by Ron Webb

This is really unfair, rami.  It is possible to disagree without being disrespectful.  In my opinion minuteman is one of the most respectful participants in these discussions.

in terms of manners i agree with you completely i haven't sensed any hostility in his words ever, i think he has a good heart, but his judgment i don't agree with.

From an islamic perspective he lacks even the basic adab [etiquette/manners/mindset/humility/respect...its a word describing/refering to these qualities and much more] in phrasing his statements correctly. remeber we are on islamic forum discussing muslim scholars so these are the standards that islam and allah expects, religious values [espetially islamic ones] are expected from a muslim.


Of course it is, just as you are sitting in judgement when you judge them to be correct or trustworthy or beyond question or whatever.

Im sorry i wasnt being clear this is a different kind of judgment not permitted in islam, he wasnt simply judging there words and wondering if he should personnaly follow them [which is fine] he was doing much more, adding his own narrative to the events based on little more than guessing.

These scholars lived 1300 years ago and the first thing islam teaches is that one is not allowed to assume the intentions of any person and based on that asumption judge them or there actions. The prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] specifically spoke against people who assume to know what is in peoples hearts in fact if i remember correctly Allah in the Quran also spoke against such things which are seen as a norm in mordern society or any society basically which doesnt look down upon gossip, there are exapmles of allah damning people to hell when this is act is taken to extremes so its not simply a matter of civility but moral judgment.

im not simply looking at the fact he disagrees with them [which is the judgment you are reffering to] he is judging the acceptability of there actions itself, there is more to his words which you do not percieve.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 6:22am
I am looking forward to seeing a response to believer's question:
It certainly looks like a contradiction to me.  How can they be reconciled?  And if it is a case of abrogation in the original sense that I understood it (i.e., to resolve a contradiction), which verse came later?
 
(I may not be able to respond for the next few days, but I will be watching any discussion with interest.)


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 8:42am
 There's no contradiction. Your understanding is wrong. We still believe in the Torah and the Evangel, except that which has been corrupted and the Quran is the criterion. Whether they are called christians, jews or sabians, whoever believes in the one and only God and works righteousness is a muslim (one who submits to Allah) and their religion was only Islam. No verse in the Quran is nullified by another.

-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 9:08am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I am looking forward to seeing a response to believer's question:
It certainly looks like a contradiction to me.  How can they be reconciled?  And if it is a case of abrogation in the original sense that I understood it (i.e., to resolve a contradiction), which verse came later?
 
(I may not be able to respond for the next few days, but I will be watching any discussion with interest.)
 
  There is no contradiction and no abrogation. verse 2:62 is telling every one to be good and peaceful. That is Islam. Even if one is a Jew or christian or a person of other faiths, if he/she believes in Allah and hereafter and he/she does good deeds then he/she has nothing to fear for the future and no sorrow for anything of the past. Remember that Muslims are included in all these conditions.
 
 What else could any one ask from the Muslims religion! That is exactly Islam, to have any religion but be peaceful and not to create disturbance in the land.
 
 The verse 3:85 is also telling about the peacefulness (Islam). Allah will not accept any other religion, other than Islam which means to be completely peaceful, honest, balanced without prejudice and hatred. That is the religion of Islam to be good to oneself and good to others, as described in verse 2:62.
 
 Ron, you will be reading and I will be waiting for your reply to my some earlier post please.  mm


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 10:03am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

I am looking forward to seeing a response to believer's question:
It certainly looks like a contradiction to me.  How can they be reconciled?  And if it is a case of abrogation in the original sense that I understood it (i.e., to resolve a contradiction), which verse came later?
 
(I may not be able to respond for the next few days, but I will be watching any discussion with interest.)
 
 
 
 
 
First of all the word "islam" is an arabic word that holds a meaning in the arabic language, which i might add seems to be disregarded by even arabic speaking people otherwise they would not translate whole verses into english but not translate the word "islam" while at it...so the use of the word "islam" in english is basically nothing more then the use of a label, in that it is not an english word, thus is devoid of meaning.
To understand the word "islam" and the faith, we must understand it's connection to the word "salam", and as you all probebly know this word means "peace", we must also look at the purpose of the monotheistic faiths in general and the goal of a person of sincere faith, namely to seek the pleasure (and with that eternal and everlasting peace) with The Supreme Being whom we name Allah. This means that whomever seeks another way/faith then "striving for" the pleasure (and with that the peace) of "Allah", from such a person his/her faith will not be accepted from him/her.
 
as is translated by Yusuf ali:  
 
There are people who adhere to a faith because they find some benefit by adhering to that specific faith, the most common benefit is not to be an outcast from a social group or even a society and being accepted as part of a specific community,...but to The Almighty no religion is accepted except the way of seeking peace with Him above all others through adhering to the faith , faith is also ofcourse obeying His laws and commands, basically doing what pleases Him and keeping away from that which displeases Him.
 
 
So submission to The Merciful (to His Will) for the purpose of gaining His pleasure/eternal peace with Him is the sincere religion, and since He is The Truth (Al Haqq) and to Him our destination is, nothing can remain (forever) in existence except the truth.
 
 
 


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 11:51am
 
Some questions for you:
 
What was first? the tuth or the lie?
which needed to be invented? the truth against the lie? or the lie against the truth?
 
 
 
 


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 8:37pm
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Ron you dont even know if that is one of the verses which "our" scholars say abrogates anything. are we now going to claim every contradiction in a persons mind is an abrogation, or rather, a lack of knowledge on the part of the individual.

if every time a christian thought the Quran was contradicting it self [in a particular passage] is evidence of abrogation then they may as well claim there is no contradiction in the Quran at all since it all cancels out....i think you'll agree that's circular reasoning Wink

just to repeat the matter again no person on this forum is educated enough [and i do mean has the nesseary IQ to understand the arguments] to discuss the science of naskh, it is a very technical issue that requires a lot of 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.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by minuteman

 Ron, you will be reading and I will be waiting for your reply to my some earlier post please.  mm
I am not sure what further reply you would like.  My last response to you was 2008 August 20 at 11:57am.
 
But really, we do not disagree on anything substantial regarding abrogation.  As I understand it, there is only a small disagreement over terminology -- whether the word "abrogation" can be applied to the verses of the Quran.  But whether or not the word applies, I understand that you (and others) do not believe that there are any contradictions, and that is the main thing.
 
I will have more to say about the apparent contradiction that believer has raised when I have time.  Briefly, it seems to me that Christians by definition believe in the divinity of Christ, which means that it must be "a religion other than Islam" and therefore unacceptable to Allah according to 3:85.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 August 2008 at 8:42pm
Originally posted by rami

Ron you dont even know if that is one of the verses which "our" scholars say abrogates anything. are we now going to claim every contradiction in a persons mind is an abrogation, or rather, a lack of knowledge on the part of the individual.
Whether or not it is an example of abrogation, it certainly looks like a contradiction to me.  I am interested in what others have to say about it.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 24 August 2008 at 1:19am
Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

then this is a different issue and should be discussed in another thread.


-------------
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.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 24 August 2008 at 12:00pm
What was first? the tuth or the lie?
which needed to be invented? the truth against the lie? or the lie against the truth?
 
GOD always was so I would say truth was first.
 
It is always the lie that must be invented.  The truth is.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 4:42pm
Originally posted by believer

What was first? the tuth or the lie?
which needed to be invented? the truth against the lie? or the lie against the truth?
 
GOD always was so I would say truth was first.
 
It is always the lie that must be invented.  The truth is.
 
That is right, also truth reveals itself to the seeker, while a lie is imposed upon or is used to cover or distort the truth. And as the old saying goes, one lie leads to many lies, as one need more lies to cover one.
Hasan 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 7:25am

Something to visualize and to ponder on is the fact that the prophets and messengers of The Almighty were all men who called people to the faith of peace with The Lord and with the striving for this, peace with many of His creation (except those who choose to be hostile), the people simply either accepted or rejected the faith. After the prophet or messenger were gone, others grabbed some chairs and set themselves up as councils, usually with the aproval and even support of the government (which usually was headed by a king or tribal leader) and  wrote volumes of books and claimed no one can understand "the religion" -what in reality is a simpel faith which can be understood by even the person who has been endowed with the least IQ by The Creator-,  except if they adhere to their taught way, and if a person does not settle for blind obedience to their words and has questions or doubts  he can go and study their volumes of books under their guidance, and when the new student completely adheres to their doctrines and methodology they declare him a scholar, give him a paper stating his scholarship and send him somewhere to do the same as is done to him to others, this all can only happen ofcourse if they see the questioner as fit for their indoctrination, in other words he must be liked by them, otherwise they just put a label on him which makes him an outcast or even label him a herretic if his claims become too threatening.... Institutionalized religion has not been the way of the prophets, nor of the last prophet Muhammad who was illiterate...it is really kind of ironic that the arab prophet was an illiterate man explaining the (simpel) faith and calling to it with such success and that now we have scholars of "islam", who are supposed to be the inherritors of the prophet (in knowledge of the faith) have desks and hundreds, even thousands of books all claimed essential to fully understand the religion...ironic.

Ofcourse this holds also for all other "religions" that got instutionalized.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 7:36pm
 
 The Quran is more than an Ocean. A wonder of Oceans. The wonders of the Quran have not all been explored by the scholars. And no one will ever be able to exhaust the wonders and secrets of the Quran.
 
 There were scholars who did well what they could do honestly. There will be new scholars and the new knowledge will be available from the Quran all the time. It is said in the Quran that if any one tries hard to seek in the way of Allah, then Allah shows him the ways and guides him to His path. See below:
 
 [29:69] And as for those who strive to meet US - We will, surely, guide them in Our ways. And, verily, Allah is with those who do good
 
 It is also a verse of the Quran that if all the trees became the pen and the Ocean became the ink and seven more Oceans were added to that ink, the wonders and knowledge of the Quran were written with the pens, the ink will be exhausted but the truth of the Quran will not all be written. See below:
 
 
[18:109] Say, 'If every ocean become ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.'
[18:110] Say, I am but a man like yourselves; but it is revealed to me that your God is One God. So let him who hopes to meet his Lord, do good deeds, and let him join no one in the worship of his Lord.
 
 
  Every day, the unseen, unknown (Ghaib) is converting into the known things. New knowledge is being revealed. We have to try and be patient and seek knowledge with truth.  mm


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 5:30am
Originally posted by minuteman

 
 The Quran is more than an Ocean. A wonder of Oceans. The wonders of the Quran have not all been explored by the scholars. And no one will ever be able to exhaust the wonders and secrets of the Quran.
 
 There were scholars who did well what they could do honestly. There will be new scholars and the new knowledge will be available from the Quran all the time. It is said in the Quran that if any one tries hard to seek in the way of Allah, then Allah shows him the ways and guides him to His path. See below:
 
 [29:69] And as for those who strive to meet US - We will, surely, guide them in Our ways. And, verily, Allah is with those who do good
 
 It is also a verse of the Quran that if all the trees became the pen and the Ocean became the ink and seven more Oceans were added to that ink, the wonders and knowledge of the Quran were written with the pens, the ink will be exhausted but the truth of the Quran will not all be written. See below:
 
 
[18:109] Say, 'If every ocean become ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the ocean would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though We brought the like thereof as further help.'
[18:110] Say, I am but a man like yourselves; but it is revealed to me that your God is One God. So let him who hopes to meet his Lord, do good deeds, and let him join no one in the worship of his Lord.
 
 
  Every day, the unseen, unknown (Ghaib) is converting into the known things. New knowledge is being revealed. We have to try and be patient and seek knowledge with truth.  mm
 yeah, it holds an evolution in the increasement in knowledge and in further broadening the way of Allah (the way of increasement in righteousness and true justice [sabeel Allah] ), eventhough it is a fact that there are always some who try to hinder (others) from the way of Allah way because they profit in one way or another from injustice and ignorance.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 6:38am
Chapter 2 was the 87th revealed before chapter 3 the 89th, so chapter 3 is the better one according to Islam.  This explains why so many christians are called losers by Muslims. 
 
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 11:53pm
 
 believer, please explain clearly what you want to say. You have something in mind. Bring it out please. Thanks. There is no enmity against any one in Quran except the hostile disbelievers and attackers (Kaafirs).
 
 Peaceful Jews and christians, doing good deeds have nothing to fear. They submit to their God in their own way and perform their religious rites AND DO GOOD DEEDS. They will not be harmed at all. It is the duty of all Muslims to protect the sacred places, synagogues, temples of all religions.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:03am

owww, i think this thread has ended. Star

Let us start a new thread about the tradition of travelin, which is the tradition of most if not all prophets and messengers of The Almighty, The Owner, and the reality on the ground (and above) with respect to those who claim to follow the way of the prophets....what i m trying to say is, "move on!".


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 7:55pm
Originally posted by minuteman

Peaceful Jews and christians, doing good deeds have nothing to fear. They submit to their God in their own way and perform their religious rites AND DO GOOD DEEDS. They will not be harmed at all.
According to 2:62; but 3:85 clearly says otherwise.  The central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ.  It is very definitely "a religion other than Islam".  There is no getting around the contradiction here.  Either it is explained by abrogation or it cannot be explained at all.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 1:58pm
 
What was happening to Mohammad when this verse was recorded?
 
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
 
What was happening to Mohammad when this verse was recorded?


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 2:24pm
What I am trying to get aat is what is the context? 
 
When you read and study the Bible you always have to keep in mind the context.
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 31 August 2008 at 12:04am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by minuteman

Peaceful Jews and christians, doing good deeds have nothing to fear. They submit to their God in their own way and perform their religious rites AND DO GOOD DEEDS. They will not be harmed at all.
 
According to 2:62; but 3:85 clearly says otherwise.  The central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ.  It is very definitely "a religion other than Islam".  There is no getting around the contradiction here.  Either it is explained by abrogation or it cannot be explained at all.
 
 Ron, even if the central context of christianity is the divinity of Jesus, it was very well known to the prophet and the Muslims and it was being mentioned (argued) in the Quran.

Despite that, the christians were given the status of the people of the book. Despite that it is being told to them that if they believe in God and hereafter and do good deeds, they have nothing to fear for anything of the past or future. That is verse 2:62.

That is a very peaceful way of life that is called Islam. That is one important aspect of Islam. Remember that Muslims are included in that verse of general peaceful behaviour. Similarly there are some other important aspects of Islam such as NO COMPULSION.

The verse 3:85 stands on its own. It tells that any one who will bring a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted. It will not flourish. The real religion with Allah is Islam. No other religion will He accept. Also remember that the religion of all the prophets of Allah was Islam. But the people distorted that and made changes in their revealed religion.

That is the most important argument from me for you now (and for believer) that the religion revealed to all prophets from Allah had been Islam. They all preached Islam. So Allah will not accept any religion other than Islam. But christians however with their misguided theology, if they do good deeds and remain peaceful, will have no fear....

 There is no contradiction or mistake..... or msimatch between verse 3:85 and verse 2:62.



-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 31 August 2008 at 6:48am
No the  central context of christianity is the sacrifice of Jesus, a gift given to us from GOD.

-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 31 August 2008 at 7:04am
Central to Christianity is forgiveness, peace and love.

-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 31 August 2008 at 7:59pm
Originally posted by believer

Central to Christianity is forgiveness, peace and love.
 
 What that has got to do with abrogation in Quran?


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 9:55am

a blessed Ramadhan wish to all those who will or are already fasting this month...



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 10:06am

Originally posted by minuteman

There is no contradiction or mistake..... or msimatch between verse 3:85 and verse 2:62.

The contradiction is so obvious I don't understand how you can ignore it.

Let's make it simple: my grandmother was a devout Christian.  She believed in God and the hereafter, and did good works.  On the other hand, she believed in the divinity of Christ (as do all Christians), and she prayed to Him (as do all Christians as far as I know).  Will she "have her reward with her Lord" (2:62), or will she "be one of the losers" (3:85)?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 12:21pm
 
 Most Muslims will reply you in the negative sense. They would tell you that she deserves hell. But that is from Allah. That is the final decision.
 
 As far as the Muslism are concerned, she was doing good deeds, meaning she was not attcking Islam and not abusing too, then she had nothing to fear from the Muslims.
 
 How God will deal with her is a different matter. We have no problem with her, even though she did not believe in Muhammad. She was good lady and peaceful person. So well and good. As far as we are concerned she can rest in peace.  But God will take account of her definitely. Please do not blame it on us.
 
 You think she will be heading for heavens. It is o.k. we will not contest it. Let her go to heavens. But it is the God who will take account of all things.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 12:56pm
I am not asking what most Muslims will say.  I am asking what the Quran says.  2:62 says she will be rewarded.  3:85 says she will not.  How can you deny that there is a contradiction?

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 02 September 2008 at 9:53am
minuteman- just pointing out a contradiction between Islam and Christianity and how the contradiction of the 2 verses "have her reward with her Lord" (2:62), or will she "be one of the losers" (3:85) exists in more then one area of belief.

-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 02 September 2008 at 10:13am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by minuteman

There is no contradiction or mistake..... or msimatch between verse 3:85 and verse 2:62.

The contradiction is so obvious I don't understand how you can ignore it.

Let's make it simple: my grandmother was a devout Christian.  She believed in God and the hereafter, and did good works.  On the other hand, she believed in the divinity of Christ (as do all Christians), and she prayed to Him (as do all Christians as far as I know).  Will she "have her reward with her Lord" (2:62), or will she "be one of the losers" (3:85)?

 
Ok look at these verses especially the last one,
 
5:116 AND LO! God said: Asad(5,139) O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ` worship me and my mother as deities beside God'?" [Jesus] answered: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to [say]! Had I said this, Thou wouldst indeed have known it! Thou knowest all that is within myself, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is Thou alone who fully knowest all the things that are beyond the reach of a created being's perception.
 
5:117 Nothing did I tell them beyond what Thou didst bid me [to say]: `Worship God, [who is] my Sustainer as well as your Sustainer.' And I bore witness to what they did as long as I dwelt in their midst; but since Thou hast caused me to die, Thou alone hast been their keeper: Asad(5,140) for Thou art witness unto everything.
 
5:118 If thou cause them to suffer - verily, they are Thy servants; and if Thou forgive them - verily, Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!"
 
 
I will state that a faith should be practiced in truthfulness, for the sake of The Lord and His love, and since we believe "God" is The (ultimate) Truth (Al Haqq, as is one of His names) we must understand our faith must be based on truth to be accepted and upheld, this ofcourse does not mean the plain conformation to beliefs of a social group, no matter how appealing those beliefs may be to some.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 4:12pm
What is your point, halfalife?  Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 7:41pm
 Ron, the believers who do good deeds will be rewarded. Their good work will not be wasted. And they will not suffer or be ashamed (verse 2:62).
 
 Islam means peace. There are many aspects of Islam. It cannot be explained in one sentence. The religion brought by all prophets was Islam. That is also an important factor to be kept in mind. Islam is not a racial religion. Some people feel that God only belonged to them and their race.
 
 Keeping all the aspects of the religion that is Islam, we believe that Allah will not accept any religion other than Islam (verse 3:85). It is quite justified. Some people try to invent their religion or without any permission from Allah they start a religion. It is a notice to them (not to you) that any religion other than Islam (Peace) will not be acceptable with Allah.
 
 There was a time of Abraham a.s. He taught the Unitarian faith and worship of One God. Then there was Joseph in Egypt. Then there was Moses in Egypt. The life progressed with the teachings of the prophets.
 
 That was all good teachings, i.e. Islam. But people kept on perverting the message of Allah. Every nation got the message. The message was for the time and that nation. Even valid for them today if they like to follow that message. No harm. Otherwise they can follow the latest message i.e. The Quran. It embodies all the earlier truths.  That is Islam.
 
 Any one bringing any religion other than Islam will not be accepted from him. That is the message of Islam now. (Verse 3:85). There is no contradiction.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 7:45pm
Please, minuteman, just answer the question: Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?

-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 7:53pm
 
 Furthermore, Ron, the people of other faiths doing good work, niether accusing nor abusing the people of other faiths will have their reward with Allah and will not be wronged. But please remember that now the real message is in the Quran for the entire mankind forever.
 
 Any one who ignores the final message will not get full satisfaction. Because the earlier message will not be able to elevate the persons to higher stage of spiritual uplift. So there is again importance of the verse 3:85.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: robin
Date Posted: 04 September 2008 at 1:06am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

What is your point, halfalife?  Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?
 
According to The Bible the place of Hellfire does not exist.  It is a pagan myth that is not real!
 
Your Granmother is in the grave awaiting the ressurection into an earthly paradice by God's good will.


Posted By: Usmani
Date Posted: 04 September 2008 at 8:46pm
Explanation of verse (2:62) in Tafheem
 
 
(2:62) Rest assured that whosoever from among the Muslims or the Jews or the Christians or the Sabaeans believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs good deeds, he will have his reward with his Lord and he will have no cause for fear and grief. *80
 
*80. The context of the verse makes it clear that it is not attempting to enumerate in detail all the articles of faith in which one should believe, or all the principles of conduct which one should follow in order to merit reward from God. These matters are mentioned elsewhere, in their appropriate places. The aim of the verse is merely to repudiate the illusion cherished by the Jews that, by virtue of their being Jews, they have a monopoly of salvation. They had long entertained the notion that a special and exclusive relationship existed between them and God. They thought, therefore, that all who belonged to their group were predestined to salvation regardless of their beliefs and actions,. whereas all non-Jews were predestined to serve as fodder for hell-fire.
To clarify this misgiving the Jews are told that what really matters in the sight of God is true faith and good deeds rather than formal affiliation with a certain religious community. Whoever has true faith and good deeds to his credit is bound to receive his reward, since God will judge people on the basis of merit rather than on the grounds that a man's name happens to be listed in the world as a member of one religious community or the other.


-------------
Engage your self in good deeds,otherswise yours nafs will engage you in bad deeds


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 05 September 2008 at 9:31am
Ron,
 
Only God knows the fate of people in the hereafter. He's the best judge and only he knows who truly believed in him and did good to please him. With our limited comprehension we cant and dont have the right to come to conclusions.
My father, as far as I and the people around him knew, was a righteous man; a good  muslim but I dont know what his fate in the hereafter will be. I can only pray and hope for his success.
Allah says in the Quran, that those who associate partners to him and work mischief will be losers in the hereafter. We can see people doing this but we cant judge their fate in the hereafter.
Like minuteman said, people who believe in the one and only God and do good deeds; their efforts dont go wasted. If you believe that God is the most just and the most merciful, you dont have to worry about your grandma.
 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 06 September 2008 at 1:42pm
minuteman - you say will not get full satisfaction-  do you mean they almost get to heaven, partial satisfaction?  Aren't you either in heaven or not?
the people of other faiths doing good work, niether accusing nor abusing the people of other faiths will have their reward with Allah and will not be wronged
 
Cool, so as a Muslim you believe that those Christians that believe that Jesus died for our salvation and do good works will be with GOD.
 
"people who believe in the one and only God and do good deeds; their efforts dont go wasted. If you believe that God is the most just and the most merciful"
 
Again cool!! 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 06 September 2008 at 8:32pm
 
 Yes there is a reward for the good deeds. And one of the basic good deeds is not to hate or deprive any one. It is in the verse 2:62 "Their reward is with their Lord....."
 
 But there are other verses in Quran which speak of a greater reward. So may be those people who will not become Muslims will have some reward but not the greatest reward.
 
 But it is sure that the Jews and the christains should get a reward for their good work whatever their belief. The only requirement seems to be that theyshould not be Atheists.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 07 September 2008 at 7:07am
Oh, Ok.
 
Oh do you mean the ones with the big brown eyes?  Some will receive paradise - thosr that fight for Allah.  Maybe the women that do good become those with the big brown eyes!?!
 
002.025
YUSUFALI: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).
PICKTHAL: And give glad tidings (O Muhammad) unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow; as often as they are regaled with food of the fruit thereof, they say: this is what was given us aforetime; and it is given to them in resemblance. There for them are pure companions; there for ever they abide.
SHAKIR: And convey good news to those who believe and do good deeds, that they shall have gardens in which rivers flow; whenever they shall be given a portion of the fruit thereof, they shall say: This is what was given to us before; and they shall be given the like of it, and they shall have pure mates in them, and in them, they shall abide.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 07 September 2008 at 7:12am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Please, minuteman, just answer the question: Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?
 
Like we Muslims like to say Ron, 'Walla hu alam' i.e. Only Allah knows.
 
I'm surprised that noone apart from Saladin pointed that out, that we as humans and especially as muslims, are in NO position to 'predict' 'assume' 'expect' or 'comment' on ANYBODY's status in the hereafter. That is up to Allah, and Allah alone. And He will decide, as He deems fit - who should go where.
 
Muslims are not allowed to comment on the afterlife of fellow muslims as well, even if it be to say 'oh, he/shes definitely going to heaven' .  We do not know, and should not try to say so.  
 
 
 


-------------
"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."


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 08 September 2008 at 8:40am
 
>
For the faithful, Allah being pleased is the best reward, even better then paradise itself,
 
and as is mentioned in this verse http://islamicity.com/mosque/quran/5.htm#119 - 5:119 :

Qala Allahu hatha yawmu yanfaAAu alssadiqeena sidquhum lahum jannatun tajree min tahtiha alanharu khalideena feeha abadan radiya Allahu AAanhum waradoo AAanhu thalika alfawzu alAAatheemu

Allah said "this is the day that the truthfull benefit from their truthfulness, for them are gardens under which river flow, forever abiding in it, Allah has become well pleased with them, and they with Him, THAT is the great achievement ("victory"),

 
As for the brown eyed virgins in paradise...maybe this is something that they did not mention on TV or has not been mentioned yet but....for someone of faith who has a hard time not to fall into fornication (which is an easy thing to do), a promise of women -untouched and undefiled- in paradise from Allah (The Only God) is an encouragement for the servant and a thing to look forward to, and at the same time it is ofcourse also a way by which Allah protects His servant from the sin of fornication...this is ofcourse only for those who truely believe,.


-------------
That is right


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 09 September 2008 at 6:03pm

I'm not sure I get this- the virgins are only for those that don't commit the sin of fornication?  I have never heard that.



-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: halfalife
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 7:57am
Originally posted by believer

I'm not sure I get this- the virgins are only for those that don't commit the sin of fornication?  I have never heard that.

 
Let me explain, you are a young man standing before a fine blond/brunette (who might be drunk of her trunk and) ready to receive... how hard can it get?
the promise of virgins/women in the hereafter sure would help  if you are a true believer who has a hard time not to fall for the sin of the flesh(lol) and is debating wether to go for  "the quick fix" or not.
 
(clear!)


-------------
That is right


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 7:52pm
 
   All prophets are good example of that but the prophet Joseph son of Jacob is the one mentioned in the Quran. Read verses 21-28 of chapter 12 please. There was a very rich lady, wife of a very senior Egyptian officer calling Joseph to the bedside.
 
 Quran 12:24,, She went for him and he would have gone for her had he not seen the manifest sign of his Lord....
 
 
[12:21] And the man from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, 'Make his stay among us honourable. Maybe we will benefit from him or we may adopt him as a son.' And thus did We establish Joseph in the land, and We did so that We might also teach him the interpretation of things. And Allah has full power over His decree, but most men know not.
[12:22] And when he attained his age of full strength, We granted him judgment and knowledge. And thus do We reward those who do good.
[12:23] And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him against his will. And she bolted the doors, and said, 'Now come.' He said, 'I seek refuge with Allah. He is my Lord. He has made my stay with you honourable. Verily, the wrongdoers never prosper.'
[12:24] And she made up her mind with regard to him, to seduce him, and he made up his mind with regard to her, to resist her. If he had not seen manifest Sign of his Lord, he could not have shown such determination. Thus did it come about that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. Surely, he was one of Our chosen servants.
[12:25] And they both raced to the door, and in the struggle she tore his shirt from behind, and they found her lord at the door. She said to him, 'What shall be the punishment of one who intended evil to thy wife, save imprisonment or a grievous chastisement?'
[12:26] Joseph said, 'She it was who sought to seduce me against my will.' And a witness of her household bore witness saying, 'If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has spoken the truth and he is a liar;
[12:27] 'But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she has lied and he is of the truthful'.
[12:28] So when he saw his shirt torn from behind, he said, Surely, this is a device of you women. Your device is indeed mighty;


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 September 2008 at 6:56pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Please, minuteman, just answer the question: Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?
 
Like we Muslims like to say Ron, 'Walla hu alam' i.e. Only Allah knows.
(What do I have to do to get a straight answer from you guys???)
 
Okay, let me rephrase:  Would someone like my grandmother, a devout Christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus, be in heaven or hell?


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 11 September 2008 at 9:46pm
 
 The belief in the divinity of Jesus was an extra deed she was doing, an extra load she was carrying. The heavens or hell is not decided on just one thing. She was a christian. I hope she was a good person, believing in God and doing good deeds, if she was not carryng a hachet against Islam, she may be forgiven the other faults.
 
 When Quran says there is a reward for the believing doing good persons, it says there is a reward. But there are many stages of the rewards. It is written in the Quran that there is a great reward for some other deeds, much greater, (Ajr an Azeema). Be sure, in Islam hell is not for ever.
 
 So your grand, if she has done some good work, she will come out of hell quite soon. Don, it is a sin of the highest order to associate any one with God. You people call every one a born sinner. But you do not know about the real sin. That is association of creatures with God. It is written that all sins may be forgiven but the sin of Shirk will not be forgiven.
 
 The Quranic message has come for all the people. The message has been passed to the christians too. If they continue on their old way an do not pick a fight with Islam then they may be forgiven for ignoring the most important command (even most important by the Jewish ten Commandments). So do not worry about others. You think about yourself. Are you honestly doing what is required by your religion?
 
 Are you a peaceful person? Are you always ready to downpaly the teachings of Islam? You know better what you are doing. You will be dealt with accordingly. We are not God Almighty. We cannot decide. But we can tell what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. The real good high grade reward cannot be achieved without belief in Muhammad.
 
 According to Islam, the denial of even one messenger of God (whoever he may be) is a great sin.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 5:47am
Just to clarify - the very beadt reward is paradise.  Are any other levels of reward mentioned in the Quran?

-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 2:55am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Chrysalis

Originally posted by Ron Webb

Please, minuteman, just answer the question: Is my grandmother in heaven or hell?
 
Like we Muslims like to say Ron, 'Walla hu alam' i.e. Only Allah knows.
(What do I have to do to get a straight answer from you guys???)
 
Okay, let me rephrase:  Would someone like my grandmother, a devout Christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus, be in heaven or hell?
 
Hmmm, I dont know how to make it any straighter, Ron. As unbelievable as it may sound, Human biengs do not have any knowledge of the unseen, and cannot predict the future, nor the fate or anyone.  
Like it or not, such are the limitations of bieng mortal. Any human post-prophetic times, who who claims knowledge about the future/fate is loony.
 
No muslim, can tell you where your grandmother , or someone like her will end up. God only knows. Hopefully we'll all get the answer to our Question on the day of judgement. Until then, there is nothing we can do.


-------------
"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."


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 14 September 2008 at 4:48am

That should have said the best reward is paradise.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=60254&FID=7 - halfalife   Good example, I understand in that case - is that in the Quran, hadith or just your example?

 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.



Print Page | Close Window