Channel: Jamal Badawi
Alaikum and welcome to Islam in focus on your host resharper Nation here with me once again i'm dr Genova berry from St. Mary's University.
Our program Today is the continuation of sources of Islam series number 59. And we continue with abrogation, which we started last week, as an American.
Maybe you can give our viewers a quick summary of last week's program surely
will indicate at first that the entire Quran is definitely conclusive. With respect to the matters of belief, and the fundamentals of the faith. However, we indicated that in the methods of legislation and changing of people's habits and behaviors, the revelation of the Quran were gradual.
So it was very important to understand which verses came for which, because in some cases, the commands or the injunction comes in the Quran for one stage until people are able to change themselves, and then it moves on to more demands or more commands, if you will.
And then we started discussing the term NASA, which again, were translated roughly as abrogation. And we indicated that in Arabic,
means to change something,
or to replace something with something else. And we said that the English equivalent of abrogation is not exactly the equivalent. So we have to take it with some caution. Because an English abrogation means to cancel to replace, or to repeal,
which is to examine the technical meaning in Arabic of mask, which means to replace one injunction with another, or one legislative command with another based on
And in that we indicated that there is only one verse in the entire Quran, which seems to be or could be interpreted to refer to abrogation in that limited sense, abrogation in a sense of supersession.
Within the Quran itself, and that was verse 106, in chapter two.
And but when we reviewed the context of that particular verse, and that is the objection on the part of the children of Israel or the highlights to the message of the Prophet and how there are some differences in small things between his message and what they they had.
The context seem to refer, according to some scholars really not to abrogation within the Quran itself, but rather, the abrogation of one law, by another law, just like, for example, the prophet will come and his message or the revelation given to him, supersedes that that was given to a previous Prophet, not that they are contradictory, but one replaces that.
Now, you just told us that there was one verse in the Quran that relates explicitly to abrogation or maybe later or maybe like to aggregation Okay. Now, might be other verses which may also imply abrogation. Yes, there are some scholars, for example, who referred to a chapter 13 in the Quran, especially in verses 38 and 39. in which it is stated that Allah it is what He wills and establishes or confirms what He wills. And they concluded from that, of course, that this probably may be talking about abrogation because erasing means also replacement. So they they accepted as such,
however, again, for exposure of different opinions, and that this does not necessarily provide a conclusive evidence of abrogation. Again,
if we put it in the context of the passage,
it might not necessarily indicate that it might indicate actually, the relationship between loads, like the previous verse. Let me just read the translation. A young fella whom he just said, seven times, and really, we sent messengers
Before you are Mohammed,
and we gave them wives and children, and it was not up to any messengers, to bring a verse, which would also mean same American, except by Alas, leave for everything, there is a prescribed time. Allah is what He wills and establishes what he will. And with him is the knowledge of literally the matter of the book, which means the foundation of all revelation or the foundation of all ordinances.
Now, many interpreters of the Quran have a project, in the context of that passage, did not interpret that verse to refer to any abrogation within the Quran itself. But it says it deals with the destiny of nations, indicating that for every nation, or every age, there are certain set of things legislatively, that Allah may reveal to the prophets, in accordance to His will, and wisdom. And they said, This is nothing really that is very strange. For example, the Quran in chapter three, verse 50, courts, Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. addressing this side, I
say moussaka, Marina de tavera to come Baba Naga Malik, which means, I came to confirm
what was revealed before me of the Torah, but also to make lawful unto you, things that has been forbidden. And as some scholars explained that some of these highlights were punished, in fact, by being prohibited, for example, from eating some types of lawful foods, just by way of punishment. So his message was essentially removal of that. This is another example of possible abrogation that is between the Torah for example, and the message of the Prophet Jesus. This is one. There's another one also, just to complete the picture.
In chapter 16, verse 101.
Some also said that this verse may be
referring to abrogation or may imply abrogation.
And basically, it says, What is ever done that I attend mechanic at mon mahana, Medina, universal, auto animate and tungsten.
It says, when we substitute one revelation for another.
And God knows best what he reveals, that is in status. They say that stumbling over
to the Prophet, you are but a forgery.
But most of them understand not.
In other words,
if you look closely, at the context of it is that the unbelievers were objecting to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, simply because some of the laws or legislation that was revealed, through him, differs with what Allah has revealed to Prophet Moses before, again, not in principles, not in fundamental beliefs, but in certain aspects.
And as such,
what God is saying in that verse what Allah says, and that says that if we that Allah change this kind of legislation, or this kind of laws, from one prophet to the other, they will accuse you or Mohammed,
forging that change. And the evidence that it probably does not refer to
abrogation within the Quran, but between different revelation to different prophets, is that the following verse answers them and saying, say, that is all Mohammed.
The Holy Spirit are, of course, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from the Lord in truth,
indicating again, confirming that it's not mine, I have no power to change anything in the Quran, I didn't change the message Exactly. And only relay the message even if it sounds a little different from what has been revealed to you before, through Prophet Moses. It is not mine. It is it is a revelation.
This is basically the
another aspect or another verse that might remotely again, relate to that, or actually confirm this possible interpretation appears in chapter 10 and verse 16. And again, to give a free translation of the linear chain is when our signs or Verses are recited on them or to them, those who are not hoping for our meeting that's meeting with Allah. That is unbelievable.
They say to the profit at the core, it has a orbital bank us
other than this or change it, and then diverse answers.
It is not up to me to change it on my own. So that seems to refer to this kind of argument that the believers didn't particularly appreciate, in the Quran that they wanted the Quran, just according to their own
thinking and their own desires.
Okay, yes, this gives us a better in depth into abrogation. But let's go back and look at my background in history. Historically speaking, maybe you can develop how abrogation developed
Well, up to the second century of Hydra, that's the second century of the migration of Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina.
That's about 615.
and the beginning or the very beginning of the third century of hijra. The most common opinion among the jurists is that there is, in fact, a progression within the Quran with respect to some verses.
However, some of the scholars were too obsessed with this question of abrogation that they exaggerated tremendously in the number of verses that they thought were abrogated by letters versus or little revelations.
However, it was perhaps Abu Muslim and Ispahani, who was a marked as a light scholar
who died about the year 322 hijra.
Who would differ with this comment opinion, not to say that there is absolutely no abrogation in the Quran, but he interpreted most
of the what was regarded by others as abrogated verses, as not only been appropriated, but more specified. The term used in Islamic law is taxes, that is, a law would be revealed or certain commands. And then another verse would be revealed, to make sure that the implementation applies only to a certain situation or certain
But in any case, it appears that both
these groups of scholars have gone perhaps to different extremes in interpreting and explaining the lectures.
The abrogation or supersession in the
ACC is often the topic of of extremes, maybe we should examine both extreme extremes. And when you get us begin with those who exaggerated the extent of abrogation was in the crowd.
as indicated earlier, some was rather obsessed really, to find more and more verses in the Quran, which they claimed, were abrogated. And some of them came up even with because of the large numbers that some included within categories of those applications.
One category is what they claim to have been, versus which were abrogated both as an injunction, but not the recitation. In other words, the verse is still there in the Quran. It's available, it's being recited, but the application of that verse was restricted to a certain situation or period of time, and as such, the injunction is abrogated. But the recitation is still there. It is part of the
A second category
is the claim that there were verses in the Quran, which were abrogated completely, not only in terms of injunction, but even removed totally from the Quran based on divine commands. In other words, God's revealed it for a certain period of time, and then they claim it was removed totally both injunction and text, it's not there.
Thirdly, they said also claimed that some verses were abrogated in terms of recitation.
But the injunction still continues in effect. That is to say, it is abrogated in a sense that it is no longer in the Quran. It's not recited. It's not part of the Quran. But the rule that it stablished continues to be in effect. Let me first comment on the second and third one, because these are the ones that are problematic and according to
is the second, the second or third categories are valid data erroneous really does not exist.
A second category. It says that some verses were abrogated both in terms of the injunction, as well as the text or recitation.
Their basic support for that opinion, were some report or some report that was attributed to Arusha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him,
in which it is a claim that she said that
one of the verses that used to be recited in the Quran relate to the brothers in lactation, let me just to give a brief background on that, so that everybody can follow
very familiar law in the West, but in Islamic law in the laws of marriage,
it prohibits the marriage of children who suckled
from the same mother, even though they may not necessarily be brothers. In other words, if a mother for example, second her on son,
and also the same time second daughter of another woman, if both children second from the same woman, they are regarded almost like brothers and sisters, and they are not
Norful to get married to each other.
They are known as brothers in lactation. And maybe I just make a brief comment on that, because I was talking to a biologist recently, Professor of Biology, who indicated to me that in a recent conference, scientific conference, she attended,
it was shown that statistically speaking, brothers and sisters in lactation are more prone, if they get married to have more miscarriages.
This is something pertaining to the immunology of the body, which is a very interesting issue, because none of this would make a lot of sense considering a lot of the immunological defense mechanism comes from Mother, Mother, exactly, especially especially if they check you know, the baskets, you know, soccer too much, because they get the antibodies also from the mother. So it affects, which is a very interesting thing, because until this time, or until this information were made available.
Many people were wondering, why does Islam forbids, you know, the marriage of these people, to strangers, but what's wrong code of nursing from the same mother, but again, after centuries? Again, we find the reason 600 years ago, right? So 600 years ago that Augustus revealed
14 actually, so you're talking to me about something much ahead of the What they discovered. But anyway, I'm just getting back by way of, you know, background. Now, the main question that some of the jurist raised about this brotherhood electrician was what is the extent of nursing if another just to give the set or something like that to another girl doesn't become like, you know, for that and for marriage to to the son of that woman.
So the, the report that was attributed to the wife of the Prophet pertaining to the abrogation here is the claim that there was a verse in the Quran,
feedings that if the mother feeds the child 10 times, then he becomes like a brother's electrician, and said that later on this was abrogated, and reduced to five.
Now, a third category, I'm just administrating the report, the third category,
which claim that some verses in the Quran, were abrogated only in recitation, but the injunctions continued, in effect, was based on a report attributed to the second case after the passage
known as a a provision, or the verse relating to stoning that is as a punishment for adultery.
And they say that there was a text to that effect, you know, that
if an old man and woman commits adultery, that's married men and women, then
not marriage and actually texts as shake was shaken, the old man and woman if they commit adultery, then they should be stoned.
And they claim that the punishment still continuous however, the verse has been abrogated in recitation, it no longer constitute part of the text of the Quran. Now, my comment on this and as derived from what scholars have said about it, is that this report even though some of which might have been reported in some important sources, like Bihari and Muslim, they are still regarded as so called ahead. That is individual reports, not in the highest degree
of authenticity, which would be necessary to prove abrogation in the Quran. It's not enough. Well, why? Why are these reports insufficient proof of abrogation? Okay, the reports could be strong in a sense of coming in some credible sources. But the issue here is relates to an important aspect of the methodology of studying ghost reports, historical reports, I put it perhaps in a simple and brief way. And maybe you can come back to that
when we deal with the issue of Hades tradition and how they were preserved, and instead ology of classifying a degree of authenticity. But essentially, the highest degree of authenticity in any report, whether it's a shame of Prophet Mohammed or others, is something known as metadata. Metadata. And metadata means that the report is not just conveyed by one chain, or one person narrated from another person where there are only one or two witnesses. But rather, it is something that has been consistently and accurately reported by a large number of people who heard it from a large number of people who had this from a large number of people. In other words, a situation which
makes it impossible for all of these large number of people in different chains of
narration, to collude on falsification or change or inaccuracy. That is beyond any doubt, especially if you get so many chains, groups and groups and groups and all of them are saying the same thing. Okay, then it must be really the highest of authenticity. Of course, the primary example of this torture of this absolute authenticity is the Quran. It's not only just a few people said, Yes, we heard the Prophet saying that you find 1000s upon 1000s, symbolizing from 1000s, and 1000s of songs. So there's no way that one can say that all of them agreed to conspire, for example, to change the Quran or add to it something that was not there.
This is when
the Hanse reports However, our reports where there may not be any reason to suspect the integrity of reporters. But it is still less instant. Because it is narrated only through a few people or one person narrated from another person, even though it might be connected to it, even one of the companions of the Prophet, but it doesn't have this substitute for authenticity. Now, how does that classification or methodology relate to abrogation? Now, if anyone comes and say, all right, this verse in the Quran was abrogated, then the evidence must be as strong and as authentic as the evidence that this is a verse in the Quran.
In other words, no single verse in the Quran is there, unless it is without it, unless it has been confirmed by a large number of people through large numbers, the highest and strictest degree of authenticity. So for everyone to claim that a verse was abrogated, you cannot claim that with a head report with reports which might be credible, but less credible than that letter must be at the same level, it's very important. Now, we have already discussed in great detail in some previous programs, meticulous way in which the Quran was, was present. And that's such,
the there's no way after going through all of this, for one to say that, alright, this part was there and is no longer here.
That is, as far as even the historicity. I'm just talking about the historicity of reports, and the difference in the degree of authenticity, which may not even be the only reason
suspecting the accuracy of this report. Well, that seems to me that you're implying that you're additional reasons or shall I say reservations about these reports. And if that is what you're claiming, then what are they? Well, first of all, absolutely right. I am implying that's why I said that. historicity is not the only reservation. On this reports, I'm talking about, again, a progression in terms of text and a citation.
The reservation that I had in mind, and I was very happy to read recently, something very confirming to my hunch or feeling about it.
I do not claim to even speak Arabic but I do not claim to really have any high eloquence in Arabic or anything, anything of that nature.
But always whenever I read about these
claims, abrogated verses, I never felt that this is the style of the Quran.
And it was later on that I again found that some people who are literally in a special
In the law courts have said the same thing also, let me give you an example of why I felt it this way. I know most of the viewers perhaps would not understand Arabic but just mention it.
For the sake of others who might
not really Quranic like about the reports, for example, attributed to Ayesha about the suckling. It says ashapura the art in automatic heroin,
or what was attributed to the statement made by the martyrs in the famous place called Ramona, Bella Bella and Bella Tina better for a piano or Donna, or what was attributed to Omar concerning the punishment for adultery, a Shea who has shaped her to it as any other than a woman. Michaela Mina, la la la voz is attacking.
As indicated before, and I'm sure many of the viewers who know Arabic might not be also specialist in Arabic, like myself, I'm not a specialist would immediately if they are familiar with the Quran and read it frequently. Notice that this style is quite different from the style of the Quran. And this is the thing that has been confirmed also by literalist.
In addition to this reason, the fact that the style is quite at odds with the Quran quite different
is the fact that some of those statements seem to differ with the overall nature of Islamic law.
Take for example, this statement attributed to armor, old men and old women, if they commit adultery, then stone them.
Now it is known, and that's universally accepted in Islamic law. That the criterion for the punishment of adultery or fornication, because there are two punishments, there is the punishment for those who are married, and those who are not married. And the punishment is not the same. For those who are married, who commit adultery. So indecently and publicly that four people can see them fully.
The punishment is stunning.
For for people who have not been married, the punishment is less it's flagellation.
So the criteria here is not the age of the person, but whether or not the person is made. That statement does not say that it says the old man, well, you could have an old person who has not been married before. Okay. abolishment would would be what would be different. Or you could get a younger person I was married and commit, you know. So this is something which seems to be at odds with the universally accepted principle in an Islamic law, just to you know, put it together. What I'm saying basically, is that the second and third categories, which has any claim that any part was there in the Quran, and was removed, either along with the injunction or without the injunction seem to be
quite weak and the even sometimes the narrations are not very consistent, for example, about this issue of adultery. In one reference, it says that this verse was in Surah, number 24. In another difference in Edna Hepburn, it says it was in chapter 33 are consistent to the report even about it is is not consistent. So one cannot really depend too much on that no matter how strong quote unquote. It's not strong enough to the level of being accepted without question. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Time few more questions I had that's gonna have to wait for another show. like to thank all of you here for joining us once again, and standing focus and hope to see you here next
week. From all of us are phenomena like