2:106
Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar
ones.87 Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything? (2:107) Dost thou not know
that God's is the dominion over the heavens and the earth, and that besides God you have none
to protect you or bring you succour?
87 The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message") occurring in this, context is also used to denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation" may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message", and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible: for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur'an itself.
the lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.
87 The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message") occurring in this, context is also used to denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation" may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message", and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible: for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to any part of the Qur'an itself.
the lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.
It
is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as ‘abrogated
verses’ are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which
they simply refer to as ‘contradictions in the Quran’.
Although
it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their
poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the
case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak
Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a
product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of
the Quran.
This abrogation principle was applied by God in reference to the older scriptures. For example, believers were told to pray in the direction of Jerusalem in Israel but in the Quran, they are told to change their direction to Mecca. All the animals with nails were forbidden to Jews. For Muslims, only pig,dead animals, blood and other animals which are sacrificed for other than ALLAH has been forbidden.
This abrogation principle was applied by God in reference to the older scriptures. For example, believers were told to pray in the direction of Jerusalem in Israel but in the Quran, they are told to change their direction to Mecca. All the animals with nails were forbidden to Jews. For Muslims, only pig,dead animals, blood and other animals which are sacrificed for other than ALLAH has been forbidden.
All the verses are very much essential. Abrogation doesn't mean that verses contradict each other.
Quran
is complete, perfect, and it isn't pliable according to desires of
readers. Abrogation is not a tool to cherry pick the verses according to
our agenda. Anyone doing so, will be sinning, heavily. Abrogation
worked when ruling of certain matters changed within the lifetime of the
Prophet. As of now, all rulings are exactly the same as they were when
revelation was completed. I'll give an example to explain.
The
direction of prayer was temporarily changed from Mecca towards
Jerusalem (Verse 2:143). This was temporarily done by God, as a test of
the firmness of the belief of the Prophet's followers. And, thus after
some time it was changed back (Verse 2:144) and has stayed same since.( by muhammad assad )
The significance of these reports is the nature of the alleged abrogated verses. The latter include numerous verses that call on the Muslims to be tolerant, forgiving, and patient, and to display such positive attributes toward non-Muslims that allowed Muslims to live peacefully with various religious groups for 1,400 years. Although the alleged abrogating function of verse 9.5 has been dismissed by most scholars
The significance of these reports is the nature of the alleged abrogated verses. The latter include numerous verses that call on the Muslims to be tolerant, forgiving, and patient, and to display such positive attributes toward non-Muslims that allowed Muslims to live peacefully with various religious groups for 1,400 years. Although the alleged abrogating function of verse 9.5 has been dismissed by most scholars
only
by taking 9.5 completely out of context it maybe be claimed that it has
abrogated verses that command the Muslims to show tolerance to
non-Muslims. To see how blatant that distortion is, I have quoted 9.5
with the verses that surround it:
A proclamation from Allah and His Messenger to people on the day of Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is clear of the polytheists, as is His Messenger. If you repent that is better for you but if you turn away then know that you are not beyond the power of Allah. And give [O Muhammad!] glad tidings of a painful chastisement to the disbelievers. (9.3) Except those of the polytheists with whom you have a treaty and they did not break its terms or aid someone against you, so abide by their treaty until their term. Allah loves the pious. (9.4) When the Inviolable Months have passed away, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. Seize them, besiege them, and wait for them at every place of observation. If they repent, observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms then let them go their way. Allah is forgiving, merciful. (9.5) If anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection [O Muhammad!], then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (9.6) How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His Messenger for the polytheists, save those with whom you [O you who believe!] made a treaty at the Inviolable Mosque? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely, Allah loves the pious. (9.7) How [can there be any treaty for the others] when if they would get an advantage over you they would not honor any relation or treaty with you? They satisfy you with their mouths while their hearts refuse. Most of them are backsliders. (9.8) They have purchased with the verses of Allah a little gain, so they have turned away from His way. Surely, evil is what they do. (9.9) They do not honor any relation or treaty with a believer; these are the transgressors. (9.10) But if they repent, observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then they are your brethren in religion. We detail Our verses for the people ofknowledge. (9.11) If they break their oaths after their treaty and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief. Surely, they have no binding oaths, so that they may desist. (9.12) Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths, set out to drive out the Messenger, and attacked you first? Do you fear them? Allah is more worthy of your fear, if you are believers. (9.13)
I have analysed these verses in my book Jihad in the Qur’an. The
verse immediately before 9.5 commands the Muslims to honor any peace
treaty they had with disbelievers. Then verse 9.6 shows that Islam does
not consider a peaceful disbeliever an enemy. The Qur’an even commanded
the Prophet to give protection to any polytheist who sought his help.
Verse
9.7 commands the Muslims to honor their treaty with the polytheists as
long as the latter honored it. God considers this to be an act of piety:
“Allah loves the pious.”
He reminds the Muslims in verses 9.8-10 that the polytheists used to
break their peace treaties whenever they felt they had the upper hand
and that they showed a similar disregard for their relations with the
Muslims. He explains that the polytheists made peace with their mouths
but did not embrace it with their hearts.
Muslims
were commanded to forgive the polytheists, live with them in peace if
the latter honored peace, and forgive and consider them brothers if they
convert to Islam (9.11). God then emphasizes that the aim of fighting
the heads of disbelief is to make them desist and establish peace
(9.12).
Finally,
verse 9.13 urges the Muslims to fight aggression, reminding them of the
background of the conflict with the disbelievers. First, it was the polytheists who broke the treaty they had with the Muslims. Second, like the Meccans who forced the Prophet to immigrate to Medina, the polytheists were trying to expel him from Medina. Third, it was the polytheists who attacked the Muslims first.
by Louay Fatoohi
by Louay Fatoohi
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder