The Quran – Sciences 60 – Naskh Supersession 3 Examples
Channel: Jamal Badawi
Series: Jamal Badawi - The Quran - Sciences
File Size: 7.02MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
Welcome once again to assignment focus. Today's program is the sixth energy sources of Islam. And to be more specific, it's the third no new topic on abrogation. I'm your host and Sharpie Nish and here with me is Dr. Jamal Vitali from St. Mary's University as conducted
by pyjama as we like to do to refresh our viewers memory. Could you please give us a summary of last week's program? Especially the topic that said it's hard to follow like this one? Well, we're following.
Well, we've continued the discussion. In the second segment of the topic of abrogation in the crime. We focused last time on the verses which may implicitly imply or relate to abrogation, especially in chapter 13 and chapter 16. And we indicated that by analyzing those verses, they do not necessarily give an absolute or conclusive evidence of abrogation within the Quran, but they may indicate superstition, of message of one Prophet of the previous prophets.
We discussed some of the views about abrogation within the Quran and how they developed. We indicated that some writers went to one extreme of exaggeration or the other.
We focused our discussion last time on one of those extremes that went too far in abrogation or cleaning, there are so many verses of Quran that has been abrogated and made because the data was so many verses that they even sub divided them into three categories. One category is the the verses in the Quran that has been abrogated by way of injunction, but they still part of the text.
Those that has been abrogated both in terms of injunction and recitation, and those that has been abrogated from the text, but the rule is still applicable. And in our discussion of the second and third categories, in particular, we gave a number of reasons why the reports cannot be accepted, both on the basis of the lack of sufficient historicity or authenticity, and serious and important method like that, that pertains to the contents of the Quran. And we said that the studies or reports are less than what is minimal, minimally required to accept abrogation. And also by analyzing the style of the these verses, we said, we saw, it's quite different from the language of
the Quran that's familiar to anyone, as literalist also confirmed, and that sometimes even, like the verse about adultery seems to be contradictory to the spirit of Islamic law, which doesn't base the punishment on age, but rather, on whether or not the person was married, to determine whether it's actually technically of fornication, in which case the punishment is, is different.
Thank you for bringing about the two types of abrogation because this is one thing I wanted to ask you last week's program, but we ran out of time, but you touched upon the second and the third type of aggregation that you left the first one out, and maybe I can bring the right back to us and you can give us examples of this type and
acceptable or not, okay, actually, I prefer to deal with the second and third first by process of elimination.
Okay, but I think the first one there are scholars who feel that it is not really problematic, that is to say that there are some verses which are there in the Quran in our hands today, which was revealed for a certain stage. So the injunction was applicable to that stage. But later on, there was modification of that injunction based on the same reason that we gave last time, that to change people from the way they used to live to the state of Islam, especially in matters of behavior and habits. It required some
excuse gradualist legislation. So that one is not problematic.
However, even in that acceptable category, there have been some exaggeration. Some rights
I even went as far as saying that there is a total of 565 verses in the Quran
has been abrogated that filters and careful research showed that with the exception of very, very few verses,
all the verses they refer to has nothing to do with abrogation or modification of injunction, but rather that they are dealing with different aspects of the same problem. And as such, they are more of complimentary versus ready rather than one abrogating the other, the great majority of them almost all except for
our viewers, and before I matter if you give us a few examples to illustrate your point, okay. In the Quran, for example, we find that there are several verses
that deal with charity
and encouraging person to look after the poor and to especially people who have farms that they should pay something
to the poor at the time when they reap the
There is also recommended a strong commendation in the Quran, as we find in chapter two, verse 215,
about kindness to needy relatives, and charity to them.
Now, many scholars have classified all of these verses as abrogated. Why, because they say all of these were abrogated by the verse in the Quran, which required Muslim to pay the cat, the cat is the regular enforceable minimum charity that one has to pay.
Now, the fact of the matter is that there is no application, here's why. They are dealing with two different things. The verse that speaks about the minimum amount that you have to pay by way of regular charity, or the cat, which is enforceable by the state
is dealing only with the mandatory part. But as we all know, from the teaching of Islam, you will required also beyond the minimum, to try your best also to help the poor. In addition, on top of that, so there is absolutely no conflict between these two verses, there is no application, because one of them deal with the complexity part, another deal with the optional part by way of exhortation to do more good.
Another example, I'm trying to be brief, because there are numerous verses that relate to the same topics and just try to classify them together.
Numerous verses in the Quran,
for example, talks about being patient in the face of the
persecution of the unbelievers. refraining from any aggressive act or response.
And some scholars said that these verses were later abrogated by what they call a a to save the verse which allows Muslim to carry arms and defend themselves and resist the tyranny.
to say that this is a matter of obligation is not totally right. Why, because to start with the idea of patients, even in the hope that the prosecutor might,
you know, reform his ways, is still applicable in other ways to be to teach the person to refrain himself from aggressive motives is still valid, and has nothing to contradict, with the notion that in some situations, you may have to carry arms and defend yourself.
On the other hand, one can also understand this versus in terms of the stages in which the Muslim community evolved.
The initial verses that asked Muslim to totally refrain and to be patient, in the face of all that persecution was a situation where they were very few, they were very weak, they were unable to defend themselves and such to carry arms at that time, would have been suicidal, does not lead them anywhere. And they needed this training also understand, when they migrated to Medina, they became strong enough. They
people entering into the fold of Islam, they were able at that time to stop the kind of persecution of other Muslims and to stand against the attacks of the unbelievers. And that such there is not really abrogation as much as you might say,
teaching for a stage which still applicable until today. If Muslims are facing the same situation, in other words, even in the 20th century,
a situation where a few Muslims as a minority in in a different
are an Islamic Society, they are persecuted
severely, they can't resist. So they have to teach, refrain and patience doesn't mean that it's totally abrogated a song. Also,
in the Quran, concerning the inheritance, the law of inheritance.
one verse in the Quran, for example, it says that if
some of the relatives or people who are poor attended, or were present at the time when the estate of the deceased is divided or distributed among the legitimate heirs, that you should give them something of that. Some scholars said that this was abrogated by the specific verses in the Quran, which have already determined which shares goes to which relative depending on the degree of relatedness to the deceased.
But again, with further examination, it appears that the verse in the Quran that determine the specific shares, it talks about the illegitimate heirs, those who are legally entitled to a share. Whereas the first verse is basically a sort of exhortation of voluntary donation with the approval of all heirs to some of the poor and needy who might be present at the time of division. You see, the point was that it was one of them is voluntary. One of them is the legal part. So there's no contradiction, there is no obligation, actually, they supplement each other.
I'll give you another example that some orientalist, as mentioned by Dr. Khalifa,
like he was, for example, have confused
and that relates to the right of the widow.
On one hand, the Quran, mentions in chapter two, in verse invest to such a fault that I will, whose husband die should wait for four months and 10 days.
On the other hand, they say that in verse 240,
there is a mention of one year.
And again, some people would wonder, is there any inconsistency there? Or is there any application, some set abrogation, the fact of the matter is that there is mental inconsistency, not application. But both verses
are each verse deed with a different aspect of the rights and guarantees of protection of the widow,
the first one that says that the widow should wait for four months and 10 days deal with the method of marriage. In other words, it's unlawful for a woman whose husband dies, to get married before the elapse of four months and 10 days. Some of the reasons are that we discussed in the social system of Islam, but basically, to recognize the rights of those who are diseased and respect for his family, but above all, to ascertain whether she's pregnant from him or not. So that if she happened to get a child, the father, that lineage of the child would be well known. So that goes with this. Whereas the other verse, that is verse 214. And chapter two, deals with another aspect of protection of the
of the widow. And basically, it says that they can wait for one year in a sense that they are entitled to stay in the house of their husbands for years, if they choose to. They are guaranteed that yes, but the West says also is they prefer to leave before that time, for example, to get married after for four days, four months and 10 days, they may do so there's no problem with this. But if she chooses to have this guarantee of protection, nobody can drive her out of the household of her husband, deceased husband for a year. I went into some detail in this because like I said, this is one of the areas where some orientalist have pointed to and perhaps their statements reflect
their lack of understanding of the nature of Islamic law and the variety of protections that this deal actually with different topics. I would recommend However, those who wish to have more details and I think I've given rough example, but those who really want to go in greater depth in this. There is an interesting book by Sheikh Abdullah Mikhail and Geoffrey it's titled Lana's half a Quran. And most of his book actually deals with this claimed, abrogated versus ensures that actually, they are dealing with different aspects of the same problem, not really abrogating one another.
But the basic point I'm just trying to make is that what many people even in the first category, which is acceptable even
claim that there are certain verses in the Quran which are there still that has been superseded by others. Most of what they said is not really relevant to have
locking. It seems to me that so far our discussion has focused on one extreme approach towards abrogation. Now, let me take you all the way to the other side of the tide and talk about the other extreme and
why is it regarded as such?
Well, that extreme, if I recollect what we mentioned earlier that one extreme exaggerated too much, and while maybe a few verses might have been accepted as superseded by others, for good reason.
The other went to the other extreme by mixing,
abrogation, oddness with something called alpha alpha, that means that
God, or Allah changes his mind. If something new appears to him some new information or some new wisdom, he discovers so he changes his mind.
Those who claim that
we're a group of people who were totally outside of the bounds of Islam, known as a Rafa and the leaders
accepted this notion that seems to have been adopted from previous
that you know, theology not from Islamic theology or Islamic law at all.
perhaps we'll get into the discussion of that position. But basically, it's a sort of like God discovering new things.
But there are those also who went to the other extreme and said that there could be no abrogation whatsoever. Because abrogation
is bad. That means that God changes his mind. And that's, that's not right to say. And some of them try to explain that, or most of the abrogation as taxis. Taxis means to specify the scope of implementation not to cancel, or to replace an injunction.
One of those scholars who adopted that second approach is known as Abu Muslim. And that's funny.
both of them, we can say are wrong. Because first of all, to say that God changes His mind is blasphemy, as we indicated in a previous program in the series, because that assumes that God lacks knowledge or lacks wisdom and just discover something that's totally contrary to the whole theme in the Quran and the attributes of Allah in the Quran. So that's, that's totally outside the boundaries of Islam.
But on the other hand, to claim also like, as for honey did, that there is no abrogation, but there's only specification
is not quite correct. Technically. I know this might get slightly technical, but maybe I should explain it in a simple term by saying that when an injunction is specified, it means that the sole injunction is there has not been abrogated. But all you're saying is that make sure that the implementation is restricted to that scope. example.
A very famous short chapter in the Quran is known as Alaska.
And it says in that in sanella, he, of course, levena, Amman, Mohammed Salah has it says that mankind, or humankind is at loss.
And then it says, except those who believed and did good deeds, and exalted each others in goodness, and exhausted each other, in perseverance.
Now, there's some exceptions, there are taxes, because in the beginning, the statement is too general it says, mankind is at loss. And he said, mankind that each man and woman everybody's at loss.
So they see us here says no, except for those who, and then it gives the description, belief and good deeds and all that. So that stasis But still, humankind is a clause in general except for this. But that's different from abrogation because abrogation means that mankind is not at loss, for example, try something different from that.
So, this is one confusion between passes or specification and supersession.
The clear difference between exactly because in one case, one is superseded in the other case, the other is just specified, it's not superseded, but there is additional
explanation of how it should be implemented, or to whom that should be applied or who should be exempted from that general rule.
one aspect of this, you know, extremism terms of
now, in view of our discussion so far, we've even discussed different aspects of abrogation
aspects of these are acceptable? Well, what is acceptable is to think of abrogation as the term that I take to the first program in this section,
more as superstition, and assisted suicide, superstition, that something supersede that it basically, that Allah, in his eternal knowledge and wisdom,
what to reveal to different prophets throughout history, or even within the Quran itself in the 23 years in which the Quran was revealed, so he chooses the timing of certain injunctions. So he may reveal one injunction at one time, which is suitable for the circumstances in that particular stage in the development of the Muslim community. And then later on, he decides.
And that knowledge, again, is known to him in advance that it is time now that they move on to another thing that he planned, you know, for them, to move into just a matter of timing with all prior knowledge available to him with all the wisdom behind that timing already attend.
I'll give you two examples of this to illustrate it. One is a more general example, that is specifically within the Quran took one general exemption that some people have gravely misunderstood.
Some people would say right, in the Quran, there is a mention of the study of Prophet Abraham.
And they say there is some kind of contradictory injunctions given to him.
On one hand, Abraham was taught to sacrifice his only son, and according to Islamic tradition, his only son
for 14 years was Ishmael, not Isaac, to sacrifice his only son, Ishmael.
No, so there's one injunction, sacrifice your son.
But then it says later on, when he just began to do this.
God ordained him to stop that and to sacrifice RM instead of his son. So they say here, two different commands, you know, but if you really look at it, there is nothing here that remotely even relates to God, changing his mind at some oriental is
absolutely irrelevant to changing minds. Because the fact of the matter is not that God worked at him to sacrifice Ishmael. And then later on, had sympathy with Ishmael and said, no sacrifice and then
exactly, you're right, the in the clan of God, that never wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son, there is no sense of getting your son. But it was like he said, a Christian,
of Prophet Abraham. So he told him that command at one stage to test his obedience. And when Abraham showed that obedience and love of the Creator, that he's even willing to sacrifice his own son. Then the other plan came into question for the other stage came to question let's say right now, he is married and plans to sacrifice the end, instead of yourself, there is no changing of mind. Here's
another example we mentioned also in a previous program,
and actually more than one occasion because we talked about it also in the lawful and unlawful and that was teaching of Islam is the prohibition of intoxicants. Again, as a habit that people were used to. The Quran did not come from the first day and say, Stop drinking, you know, but we find that it's got through stages in chapter 16. In the Quran, verse 67, it made a contrast between saccharin and less contrast and, and the two things that are intoxicant and things that are good by word contrast. And then in chapter two, verse 19, it says, There is good and evil in intoxicant or there is a benefit. But there is evil and the evil is greater than the benefit. So people do it. And
then later on,
in chapter four, verse 43, says, Don't come to the prayers while you're intoxicated, or under the influence of alcohol or other toxic. And then later on chapter two, verse 219. The prohibition was categorical and final. Again, it doesn't mean that in essence, one abrogated the others or removing it altogether, because until today, it is still valid, that you can go to prayers under intoxicants. But it was beyond that to say that not only for the prayer purposes, but for good, don't drink period
and the validity of many which still holds. I would like to add just one comment to that when we talk about obligation even in that sense or superstition. There is no superstition in fundamental beliefs.
No superstition or abrogation in fundamental aspects of
morality, fundamentals, or basis of worship or basis of dealings. The basic principles can never undergo this kind of change, but it's the sort of
legislative matters then with with it. Now, in our discussion, you talked about these different categories, and we've quote unquote, mentioned the acceptable category of aggregation. Now, is there any information about maybe the approximate number of verses in this particular category? Well, according to one great scholars of the Quran, will mention his name before generic Dean.
He says that actually, it boils down to 21 verse, of course, that's fine, you know, from the 565, with some people exaggerated without any justification. And even a suti himself exempted two verses out of this 21
known as the verses pertaining to taking permission stay then, and the subdivision of the estate of the deceased. So that came down to 19. According to some contemporary scholars, even like Dr. Sophie Salah was never mentioned before. Also, he said that if these are scrutinized further, probably the abrogated, quote unquote, or sub verses that were superseded by other verses in the Quran, will not exceed about 10 of them. And we have already explained before that this thing even shows basically the sort of gradual nature of the housing
legislation or how it moves from one state to the other.
Let me give you a few examples of some of the verses that generic theme is co2 mentioned, which seem to indicate that
even the term application might might be too much for it, even though there is some kind of superstition.
In chapter two in the Quran in verse 115.
It says, What in the hell Mashallah for an intimate when Luther modulite says basically, that, unto Allah belongs to the east and the west. And whenever or wherever you turn your face, that is the Presence of Allah.
On the other hand, some believe that this was superseded by the verse in chapter two.
That's verse 44. It says that whenever you play, soccer shots and message that you direct your face towards the Kaaba, that's the second house.
Now, while this might sound different, that on one hand, it says you can pray or whatever you turn your face, you know, there's the Presence of Allah, the other one says, you have to specifically Turn your face towards the cover.
In fact, as some scholars explained it, that even the first one, the first verse that was believed to be superseded by some scholars, is still applicable.
There is no difference among Jewish people, for example, when they are traveling on board the ship, or plane or missile, for that matter, whatever spaceship
they can direct their face, to the best of their ability, but if the cabin or ship or plane changes direction, they don't have to change direction system for the society like that. You can again, whenever you turn your face there is the Presence of Allah. Okay.
Some of them wouldn't say that, especially for, for voluntary prayers, even voluntary prayers if one is struggling on Lighting a candle, for example, or a horse, he can just play in any direction. Whereas under normal circumstances, when the person is resident when he's able to determine the direction of the calibre, the required prayer, he should direct himself towards that. So like I said, even those 10 that astutely mentioned, does not mean necessarily that one of them was canceled, as such,
we thank you all for joining us and we hope to see you again next week and his time and focus from all of us here. Our family