How can I look up to Islamic scholars when....

[Niblo]

Do you understand the doctrine of Abrogation in Islam? If two verses in the Quran have contradictory statements, the verse that was revealed later is the one that you follow.

There is no such thing as a ‘doctrine of Abrogation’ in Islam.

This is what Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan has to say on the subject:

‘The Qur’an is perhaps the most widely consulted Scripture, and also the most manipulated source of law………………. One group of scholars uses the Qur’an to substantiate their views and rebut others; another camp of clerics uses the Qur’an to authenticate their thoughts and to condemn the rival approach. The theological and legislative debates revolving around the Qur’an have caused the one united Muslim Ummah to divide into various camps that have most of the time been at odds with each other over most issues.

‘One such issue related to the Qur’an is abrogation.

‘Predominantly, there are two circles of ‘ulamā’, one favouring the abrogation and the other negating it. Both of them insist on their respective opinion on the abrogation. Neither of the two groups of scholars is prepared to give up its stand, each stating it represents the truth while the other is totally on the wrong side. Despite the lapse of fifteen hundred years since the revelation of the Qur’an, the dispute over abrogation in the Qur’an is as fresh today as it might have been at its early stage.

‘………………….Innumerable books have been written on this subject. Yet, the matter remains unsettled.

‘The arguments for the abrogation in the Qur’an are based on some Qur’anic verses, views of early generations of scholars, claims about the existence of abrogated verses in the Qur’an, and claims of consensus. In most cases, the Qur’anic verses used as arguments in favour of abrogation theory are misquoted. They are read either outside the context or are advanced only in part. When reading those verses in full and also in context, a totally different message emerges. Reading the Qur’an half-heartedly is manipulation and not interpretation. The concept of abrogation in the eyes of early generations of scholars was not what was construed later. To them, abrogation never denoted permanent suspension of the Qur’anic commands. Claim of consensus is misrepresentation of the situation. There has always been controversy over this matter. To claim that some verses of the Qur’an are abrogated is to cast doubt about the authenticity of the Qur’an.

‘Neither God nor His Prophet ever guided man in a categorical manner that this verse or that verse is practically invalid. There are many verses in the Qur’an that spell out various attributes of the Qur’an (e.g., guide, wise, cure, et cetera.), which necessitate the practical relevance of the Qur’an in its entirety. There is no authentic statement of the Prophet referring to the abrogated verses of the Qur’an. The only viable way to resolve the abrogation-related controversy is to endeavour to interpret the verses concerned. Sincere effort to understand the practical relevance of the verses in dispute will certainly bring results.

(Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan: ‘Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critique’).

The Noble Qur’an mentions, repeatedly, freedom of conscience as one of its fundamental tenets:

‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’

(Al-Baqara: Verse 256).

Those who argue that apostasy warrants the death penalty say that this Sura has been abrogated.

But this cannot be.

Consider the following:

‘Neither those People of the Book who disbelieve nor the idolaters would like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord, but Allāh chooses for His grace whoever He will: His bounty has no limits. Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you (Prophet) not know that Allāh has power over everything?

(Al-Baqara: Verses 105-106).

Although the Noble Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it prescribe any human punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves sole right to impart judgment for these choices in the afterlife.

Look again at Al-Baqara. Notice the words: ‘……We replace with something better or similar.’

How can a death penalty be ‘better’ than, or ‘similar’ to, no earthly penalty at all?

All Muslims consider the Noble Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy - of itself - is not a punishable offence at all; let alone by death.

The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence - such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.

 

[smaneck]

Do you understand the doctrine of Abrogation in Islam? If two verses in the Quran have contradictory statements, the verse that was revealed later is the one that you follow.

There is no such thing as a ‘doctrine of Abrogation’ in Islam.

Isn't changing the Qiblih from Jerusalem to Mecca an act of abrogation?

 

[football5680]

There is no such thing as a ‘doctrine of Abrogation’ in Islam.

This is what Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan has to say on the subject:

‘The Qur’an is perhaps the most widely consulted Scripture, and also the most manipulated source of law………………. One group of scholars uses the Qur’an to substantiate their views and rebut others; another camp of clerics uses the Qur’an to authenticate their thoughts and to condemn the rival approach. The theological and legislative debates revolving around the Qur’an have caused the one united Muslim Ummah to divide into various camps that have most of the time been at odds with each other over most issues.

‘One such issue related to the Qur’an is abrogation.

‘Predominantly, there are two circles of ‘ulamā’, one favouring the abrogation and the other negating it. Both of them insist on their respective opinion on the abrogation. Neither of the two groups of scholars is prepared to give up its stand, each stating it represents the truth while the other is totally on the wrong side. Despite the lapse of fifteen hundred years since the revelation of the Qur’an, the dispute over abrogation in the Qur’an is as fresh today as it might have been at its early stage.

‘………………….Innumerable books have been written on this subject. Yet, the matter remains unsettled.

‘The arguments for the abrogation in the Qur’an are based on some Qur’anic verses, views of early generations of scholars, claims about the existence of abrogated verses in the Qur’an, and claims of consensus. In most cases, the Qur’anic verses used as arguments in favour of abrogation theory are misquoted. They are read either outside the context or are advanced only in part. When reading those verses in full and also in context, a totally different message emerges. Reading the Qur’an half-heartedly is manipulation and not interpretation. The concept of abrogation in the eyes of early generations of scholars was not what was construed later. To them, abrogation never denoted permanent suspension of the Qur’anic commands. Claim of consensus is misrepresentation of the situation. There has always been controversy over this matter. To claim that some verses of the Qur’an are abrogated is to cast doubt about the authenticity of the Qur’an.

‘Neither God nor His Prophet ever guided man in a categorical manner that this verse or that verse is practically invalid. There are many verses in the Qur’an that spell out various attributes of the Qur’an (e.g., guide, wise, cure, et cetera.), which necessitate the practical relevance of the Qur’an in its entirety. There is no authentic statement of the Prophet referring to the abrogated verses of the Qur’an. The only viable way to resolve the abrogation-related controversy is to endeavour to interpret the verses concerned. Sincere effort to understand the practical relevance of the verses in dispute will certainly bring results.

(Dr. Israr Ahmad Khan: ‘Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critique&#8217.

The Noble Qur’an mentions, repeatedly, freedom of conscience as one of its fundamental tenets:

‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’

(Al-Baqara: Verse 256).

Those who argue that apostasy warrants the death penalty say that this Sura has been abrogated.

But this cannot be.

Consider the following:

‘Neither those People of the Book who disbelieve nor the idolaters would like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord, but Allāh chooses for His grace whoever He will: His bounty has no limits. Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you (Prophet) not know that Allāh has power over everything?

(Al-Baqara: Verses 105-106).

Although the Noble Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it prescribe any human punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves sole right to impart judgment for these choices in the afterlife.

Look again at Al-Baqara. Notice the words: ‘……We replace with something better or similar.’

How can a death penalty be ‘better’ than, or ‘similar’ to, no earthly penalty at all?

All Muslims consider the Noble Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy - of itself - is not a punishable offence at all; let alone by death.

The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence - such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.

Without abrogation the Quran is a book of contradictory commandments. If one verse says do something, and another verse says don't do it, how do you choose what is right? The doctrine of abrogation is necessary to make sense out of the Quran.

When Muhammad was in Mecca and only had a few followers, Islam had to be peaceful or he would have been wiped out. In Medina he gained a lot of followers and could finally wage war against people.

How can a death penalty be ‘better’ than, or ‘similar’ to, no earthly penalty at all?

Sahih Bukhari helps explain this.

The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."

Better does not need to be similar, the outcome simply has to be more preferable.

Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds. (Quran 47:35)

When Muhammad was in Mecca, calling for peace between him and the Pagans was a good thing to do because fighting would do him no good. When he was in Medina and had power, fighting against the unbelievers was preferable because there was a lot to gain.

 

[smaneck]

Without abrogation the Quran is a book of contradictory commandments. If one verse says do something, and another verse says don't do it, how do you choose what is right? The doctrine of abrogation is necessary to make sense out of the Quran.

I've been reading the Qur'an for forty years and I don't see contradictions. The Bible, though, it is full of contradictions!

When Muhammad was in Mecca and only had a few followers, Islam had to be peaceful or he would have been wiped out. In Medina he gained a lot of followers and could finally wage war against people.

Except verses such as "There is no compulsion in religion" is revealed during the Medinan period whereas much of the hell, fire, and brimstone stuff is from the Meccan period.

Sahih Bukhari helps explain this.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Shi'ites don't regard al-Bukhari as authoritative? For Shi'ites to accept a hadith they must accept the isnad, so please next time you quote a hadith please include the isnad. Otherwise you might as well be quoting Luther as an authority on a Christianity to a Roman Catholic!

When Muhammad was in Mecca, calling for peace between him and the Pagans was a good thing to do because fighting would do him no good.

Again, none of the verses calling for peace were revealed during the Meccan period. They are all Medinan suras. And that makes sense. You don't call for peace unless there is a war going on.

 

[AskTheFamily]

There are authentic hadiths in Shia collection from Imams to kill apostates, to the degree it's mutabir but this just makes not have faith in our authenticating and ilmel rijaal. If it contradicts Quran and morality, if it obviously is not a teaching of God.

 

[Niblo]

Isn't changing the Qiblih from Jerusalem to Mecca an act of abrogation?

Was the change of Qiblih from Jerusalem to Mecca an act of abrogation? In my opinion, no.

Justification:

‘Neither those People of the Book who disbelieve nor the idolaters would like anything good to be sent down to you from your Lord, but Allāh chooses for His grace whoever He will: His bounty has no limits. Any revelation We cause to be superseded or forgotten, We replace with something better or similar. Do you (Prophet) not know that Allāh has power over everything?

(Al-Baqara: Verses 105-106).

Comment:

Revelation is a river that flows without end. Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) speaks to us through the Prophets (Radi Allahu ‘anhum); and also through those ‘light-bulb’ moments when we understand, for the very first time, a truth that has been obvious to others.

It’s quite clear from these verses that the Beloved imparts knowledge in a time and manner that suits His purposes.

Concerning the direction of prayer:

‘The practice of facing Jerusalem when praying has been tenaciously preserved in traditional Judaism for thousands of years and is firmly established in Halakha. The Jewish code of laws Shulhan Arukh includes it as one of the requirements of synagogue architecture:

‘”Doors and windows of the bet Knesset should open towards Jerusalem so that one may pray towards it.”

‘In the Code of Maimonides it is stipulated as the proper posture during prayer:

‘”If one is located outside the land, he should turn his face towards Eretz Yisrael and pray. If he is in the land, he should turn towards Jerusalem . . . if in Jerusalem, he should turn toward the Temple. If in the Temple, he should turn his face towards the Holy of Holies.”’

(Shubert Spero: ‘Turning to Jerusalem in Prayer’)

Comment:

While at Mecca, the Muslims prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. They were familiar with Jewish practice, and a minority of Muslim scholars say that they took it upon themselves to follow that practice. I disagree with this minority.

About two years after moving to Medina the Muslims were told to change their adopted direction of prayer. But why?

‘The foolish people will say: “What has turned them away from the prayer direction they used to face?” Say: “East and West belong to Allāh. He guides whoever He will to the right way.” We have made you (believers) into a just community, so that you may bear witness (to the truth) before others and so that the Messenger may bear witness (to it) before you. We only made the direction the one you used to face (Prophet) in order to distinguish those who follow the Messenger from those who turn on their heels: that test was hard, except for those Allāh has guided. Allāh would never let your faith go to waste (believers), for Allāh is most compassionate and most merciful towards people. Many a time We have seen you (Prophet) turn your face towards Heaven, so We are turning you towards a prayer direction that pleases you…..’

(Al-Baqara: Verses 142-144).

Comment:

‘We only made the direction the one you used to face (Prophet) in order to distinguish those who follow the Messenger from those who turn on their heels: that test was hard, except for those Allāh has guided. Allāh would never let your faith go to waste (believers), for Allāh is most compassionate and most merciful towards people.’

The words: ‘We only made the direction……’ are a problem. Taken at face value, they imply a command: (‘Face Jerusalem!’), followed (abrogated) by a second command: ‘Now face Mecca’.

The question then asked is: ‘How could the Qur’an be the literal word of God when it contains contradictions like this?’ Indeed, there are those who say that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) made it all up; that he wanted to ingratiate himself with the Jews, and so aped their practices by praying in the direction of Jerusalem; but as soon as he realised that the Jews were not interested in becoming Muslims he switched the direction of prayer to Mecca.

I don’t believe there is any abrogation here. Allow me to use an analogy to explain why:

As a teacher you use lesson plans. If your students are about to tackle a complicated project, and are lacking the necessary competence, you might decide to reveal only the first part of your plan: to set them a task that will impart knowledge, develop skills and introduce essential behaviours. As soon as you are satisfied that they have what it takes to progress, and to succeed, you reveal the rest of your plan; and they act accordingly.

No College Inspector (in the UK that would be OFSTED, as you know) would accuse you of ‘abrogation’ for implementing your lesson plan in this way.

I believe that the Beloved implemented His ‘lesson plan’ for the Muslims in the same manner.

The first part of the ‘plan’ was a test: ‘in order to distinguish those who follow the Messenger from those who turn on their heels’.

While at Mecca (for fourteen years) the Muslims were subjected to hatred, persecution, and violence at the hands of the Quraysh. Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) had them observe the Jewish practice of praying in the direction of Jerusalem as a test of their faith and of their willingness to submit to His Will. Those who followed the example of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and who prayed alongside him, were tested indeed!

‘Many a time We have seen you (Prophet) turn your face towards Heaven, so We are turning you towards a prayer direction that pleases you.’

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) knew full well (before His ‘project’ even began) that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) yearned to face the Ka'aba in prayer. It was very dear to him, having been built by Ibrahim and Ishmael. When the time was right, the Beloved revealed the remainder of His ‘lesson plan’. The Muslims were given a ‘direction’ of their own.

‘……….Turn your face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque: wherever you (believers) may be, turn your faces to it. Those who were given the Scripture know with certainty that this is the Truth from their Lord: Allāh is not unaware of what they do. Yet even if you brought every proof to those who were given the Scripture, they would not follow your prayer direction, nor will you follow theirs, nor indeed will any of them follow one another’s direction. If you (Prophet) were to follow their desires, after the knowledge brought to you, you would be doing wrong. Those We gave Scripture know it as well as they know their own sons, but some of them hide the truth that they know. The truth is from your Lord, so do not be one of those who doubt. Each community has its own direction to which it turns: race to do good deeds and wherever you are, Allāh will bring you together. Allāh has power to do everything.’

(Al-Baqara: Verses 144-148).

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) knows best.

Have a great day!

 

[smaneck]

Was the change of Qiblih from Jerusalem to Mecca an act of abrogation? In my opinion, no.
<snip>
The words: ‘We only made the direction……’ are a problem. Taken at face value, they imply a command: (‘Face Jerusalem!’), followed (abrogated) by a second command: ‘Now face Mecca’.

The question then asked is: ‘How could the Qur’an be the literal word of God when it contains contradictions like this?’

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue, partly because it was Muhammad himself, not just some Muslims who prayed towards Jerusalem. And partly because I don't see religious law as progressive and not immutable in the first place. Okay that's the Baha'i in me. However, those Christians who are trying to argue that the peaceful verses in the Qur'an were abrogated are largely clueless as to chronology of the Qur'an and don't know what they are talking about.

 

[smaneck]

There are authentic hadiths in Shia collection from Imams to kill apostates, to the degree it's mutabir but this just makes not have faith in our authenticating and ilmel rijaal. If it contradicts Quran and morality, if it obviously is not a teaching of God.

I would tend to agree with you on this. It is pretty clear to me that killing apostates had more to do with military treason than anything else, that is why women were not subject to this penalty.

 

[Niblo]

However, those Christians who are trying to argue that the peaceful verses in the Qur'an were abrogated are largely clueless as to chronology of the Qur'an and don't know what they are talking about.

Hello there.

Exactly!

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that Muhammad also prayed towards Jerusalem.

Killer question!

Have a great day.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Q. What is your ruling regarding people who leave Islam ? Do they become Wajib-ul-Qatl ? Is killing them halal ?

&#1580; - &#1608;&#1575;&#1580;&#1576; &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1578;&#1604; &#1606;&#1576;&#1608;&#1583;&#1607; &#1608;&#1601;&#1602;&#1591; &#1576;&#1575;&#1740;&#1583; &#1570;&#1606;&#1607;&#1575; &#1585;&#1575; &#1606;&#1589;&#1581;&#1740;&#1578; &#1606;&#1605;&#1608;&#1583;
A.They are not WAJIB-ul-QATL and have to be talked to them.

The Office of Grand Ayatullah Saanei

-----

Q. What is your ruling regarding people who leave Islam ? Do they become Wajib-ul-Qatl ? Is killing them halal ?

A. It is not allowed to kill them.

The Office of Grand Ayatullah Hosseini Nassab

 

[smaneck]

Q. What is your ruling regarding people who leave Islam ? Do they become Wajib-ul-Qatl ? Is killing them halal ?

&#1580; - &#1608;&#1575;&#1580;&#1576; &#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1578;&#1604; &#1606;&#1576;&#1608;&#1583;&#1607; &#1608;&#1601;&#1602;&#1591; &#1576;&#1575;&#1740;&#1583; &#1570;&#1606;&#1607;&#1575; &#1585;&#1575; &#1606;&#1589;&#1581;&#1740;&#1578; &#1606;&#1605;&#1608;&#1583;
A.They are not WAJIB-ul-QATL and have to be talked to them.

The Office of Grand Ayatullah Saanei

-----

Q. What is your ruling regarding people who leave Islam ? Do they become Wajib-ul-Qatl ? Is killing them halal ?

A. It is not allowed to kill them.

The Office of Grand Ayatullah Hosseini Nassab

Interesting. Both Ayatullahs were students of Ayatullah Montazeri, a very traditional marja who was senior to Khomeini and supposed to succeed him. For awhile Montazeri ran the judicial system. When he was questioned regarding the execution of more than 200 Baha'is he insisted that being a Baha'i was no illegal but belonging to a Baha'i organization was. We took him at his word and immediately disbanded all Baha'i organizations in Iran. Much to our surprise, the killing stopped. Later, Montazeri became increasing critical of Iran's human rights record and Khomeini had him defrocked, something unprecedented in Shi'ism. My understanding is that Ayatullah Saanei has also been defrocked due to his support of the Green Revolution. As for Ayatullah Nassab, he lives in Toronto, far beyond their reach.

 

[com7fy8]

Muslims have had the same debates over Predestination vs. Free Will that one finds in Christianity.

That debating can be about beliefs, and that can keep attention away from how we can be personal with God . . . instead of just making Him theoretical. We can be busy with proving ideas, but not be submitting personally to our Father. So, we first need to submit to God, personally, through Jesus, then discover how we understand "the love meaning" of His word and correct ideas about Christianity.

I understand that predestination means God is in control and "therefore" it is theo-logical that we need to submit to Him so we benefit fully from how He is in control. And with Him we have results which He produces better than we can try to do So, this is the practical meaning of predestination, I consider and offer The meaning is how it works, not only how we explain it!

And free will means we make choices and are accountable for what we do. And we reap so much more than those little seeds we have sown > Galatians 6:7-8. So, also, then, the theo-logical meaning of free will is how we need to submit to God so we do what He knows will grow into all that is good. Only God can really know; so we need how He has us sow

In His love, what we sow will grow into all that is good. In His love we have His personal guiding "continually" > Isaiah 58:11.

But if we act in our free wills without submitting to God, we are in trouble, plus "God resists the proud" (in James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5); so, therefore, God does not respect our wills while we are acting in pride!! But He resists us. This is for our own good . . . so we don't go as far into trouble as we could if He was not resisting us. So, His resistance is caring and loving, personally reaching us at our level while acting in ego. So, God is always personally communicating with us . . . by His personal leading in His love, or a run-in with His resistance.

So, the really right meaning of predestination and free will is that we trust and depend on God . . . not that we spend all kinds of time arguing about if one idea or the other is the right one, but do the right meaning which is the same for both

Biblical predestination and free will both mean God wants us to love any and all people. So, we need to first make sure we are doing this