Learning our Deen (Islam)

November 6, 2008

The Meaning of Tawassul and Waseelah

Filed under: Beginner, General, Ibadah - worship, Quran, tafsir — Tags: , , , , , — Um Abdullah M. @ 5:20 pm

 

 The word Tawassul comes from the word “Al Wasila

Definition of Al Wasila

Al-Khalil bin Ahmad (100-170 H.) said in “al Ayn”:

Wassaltu to my Lord Wasilatan, means: I did a deed that by which I drew near to Him. And I did tawassul to someone by a book or a relative, means that I sought means of approach to him by it.

Labeed said:

‘I see that the people do not know the value of their affair,
where as every religious person seeks to draw nearer to Allaah.’

Isma’il bin Hammad al Jawhari (d. 393 H.) said in “As-Sihah fi Al-Lughah”:

Al Wasila: That by which one draws near to another”.

 

 

Al wasilah ” by this meaning is found in the Quran:

O you who believe! Fear Allah and seek al wasilah to Him. (5:35)

Its tafsir (interpretation) :

Tafsir Imam At-Tabari (d. 310 H.) He says: and seek nearness to Him by performing the acts that please Him.

Tafsir “Bahr al Uloom” by Abul Layth As-Simirqandi (d. 375 H.) It means: seek nearness and virtue by the good deeds.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H.) : Ibn `Abbas said that Wasilah means `the means of approach’.
Mujahid, Abu Wa’il, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Abdullah bin Kathir, As-Suddi, Ibn Zayd and others gave the same meaning for Wasilah.

Qatadah said that the ayah means, “Seek the means of approach to Him by obeying Him and performing the acts that please Him.”

And there is no disagreement amongst the mufassireen on what those Imams said.

 

 

Thus the general meaning of Tawassul is to seek nearness to Allah through performing good deeds.
As for the specific meaning of Tawassul, it is to hope for and seek the answering of one’s duaa (supplication).

 

The Agreed Upon Types of Tawassul

 

.

April 2, 2008

EVIDENCES FOR ABROGATION IN ISLAM (NASKH)

Filed under: General, Hadith-Hadeeth, Intermediate, Quran — Um Abdullah M. @ 9:42 am

EVIDENCES FOR ABROGATION (NASKH)

Written by brother Abu Hazim al Katib (from the Arabic multaqa of ahl al Hadith)
Translated by brothers: Ayman Khaled & Mahmoud al Misri (may Allah reward them both)
Slightly Edited by Um Abdullah M.

The issue of abrogation is agreed upon by scholars of Islam, it has been stated that it is a matter of consensus to which no one apposed except what was reported about Abu Muslim Al-Asfahani who belongs to Mu’tazilah sect. However, the majority of Mu’tazilah sect acknowledge the existence of abrogation, which is in agreement with the opinion of Ahlu Alsunnah and the people of the Qiblah, the Muslims.

Abrogation is proven by Quran, Sunnah, consensus and logic.

From The Quran:

1) Allah, the most High says: {Such of Our revelations as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?}[2:106]

Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari (d. 310 H.) said:
“Allah means with (Such of Our revelations as we abrogate): we abrogate the ruling of a verse by another to change and replace this ruling. This is by making Halal to become Haram and vice versa or to let what is permissible to become impermissible. Thus, abrogation is only concerned with matters of commands and rulings such like: permissibility and impermissibility, prohibition and Halal … etc. Therefore, previous nation’s news and stories have no abrogation…” [Tafsir Ibn jarir (jami’e Al-Bayan):1/521]

Ibn Kathir said as well:
“Ibn Abi Talha narrated Ibn Abbas saying: (Such of Our revelations as we abrogate) means: what we replace of verses.
Ibn Jarir reported from the way of Mujahid: This part means: the verses we erased” and Ibn Abi Najeh from the way of Mujhaid narrated Mujahid said: “we confirm the verse and its place in Quran but we replace its ruling. This is what the companions of Ibn Masoud narrated as well.” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer: 1/207]

Al-Qurtubi in his book “Al-Jamie’ Li Ahkam Al-Quran” while he was talking about the verse of abrogation:
“Having knowledge about this matter is needed and its benefit is great, to the extent that all scholars need to know about abrogation because only the ignorant would deny abrogation since abrogation is needed to know the rulings of what is Haram and halal” [Al-Jamie Li Ahkam Al-Quran: 2/61]

2) {And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.} [Al-Nahl: 101]

Ibn Jarir Al Tabari said:

“Allah the exalted says: We abrogate the ruling of a verse by replacing it with another ruling in another verse. In regards the part where it says {And Allah knoweth best what He revealeth}; Allah says there: what Allah abrogates and replaces is for the best of benefit to his creation as He knows the best. The part {revealeth they say: Lo! thou art but inventing} means: those, who associate someone with Allah in worshiping and disbelieving in the messenger, say to the messenger: O Muhammad you are inventing this which means that you claiming that Allah said that while he did not. So Allah replies to what they said: indeed, most of them are ignorant about the fact that what you –Muhammad- bring them i.e. abrogated verses and verses that abrogate another verse are all from Allah.

Scholars of interpretations said exactly as what we said about the above verse. And some of those who mentioned that are:

[..chain of narration..] Mujahid said about this verse: it means Allah lifts up a verse and replace it with another

[..chain of narration..] Mujahid said: Allah abrogates verses, replace them , lift them up and confirm another verse in abrogated verses.

[..chain of narration..] Qutada said: the context of the verse {. as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten,} is same as {we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation}.

[.. chain of narration ..] Ibn zaid said about the part where Allah says {we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation}: they; disbelievers, said to Muhammad you bring something then you say otherwise. So Allah says: this replacement is an abrogation because whenever a verse si replaced by another then it has to be an abrogation. [tafseer Ibn Jarir: Jamie AlBayan: 7/646] and for further readings: Ibn Katheer: 2/774] and AlJamie Li Ahkam AlQuran by Al Qurtubi: 10/157]

3) Abrogation took place in many verses in the Quran:

1. {(In the case of) those of you who are about to die and leave behind them wives, they should bequeath unto their wives a provision for the year without turning them out, but if they go out (of their own accord) there is no sin for you in that which they do of themselves within their rights. Allah is Mighty, Wise} has been abrogated by the verse {such of you as die and leave behind them wives, they (the wives) shall wait, keeping themselves apart, four months and ten days. And when they reach the term (prescribed for them) then there is no sin for you in aught that they may do with themselves in decency. Allah is Informed of what ye do}

2. {It is prescribed for you, when one of you approacheth death, if he leave wealth, that he bequeath unto parents and near relatives in kindness. (This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil).} was abrogated by {Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females}

3. {Turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces when ye pray) toward it} abrogated the command of praying toward bait Al-Maqdis.

4. {O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.} was abrogated by {Now. hath Allah lightened your burden, for He knoweth that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand (steadfast) they shall overcome two thousand by permission of Allah. Allah is with the steadfast.}

5. {It is prescribed for you, when one of you approacheth death, if he leave wealth, that he bequeath unto parents and near relatives in kindness. (This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil).} was abrogated with { Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females}

6. {And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship,} abrogated praying toward madqdis Masjid.

Scholars have written special books about abrogation in the Quran:
Al-Nasikh and Mansookh by Abu Ja’far Al-Nahhas
Al-Nasikh and Mansookh by Abu Ubaid Alqasim Bin Salam
Ma’rifat AlNasikh wa AlMansookh by Ibn Hazm
Al-Nasikh Wa Almansookh from the Quran by Hibat Allah al-Maqri
Nawasikh AlQuran by Ibn Al-Jawzi
Al-Nasikh Wa AlMansookh by Ibn Al-A’rabi
and many other books.

Thus, we can notice that this is a matter of consent by scholars about the existence of abrogation so that you never find a scholar who wrote about Quran Tafseer denying or even doubting abrogation except some recent ones who have no early scholar to agree with them.

Proofs from the Sunnah:

There are many traditions that indicate the occurrence of abrogation in the shari’ah. The Prophet might give an order, and then would say that it has been abrogated, or prohibits from something and then say that it had been abrogated.

Many books had also been authored that speak about this [matter], which indicates the belief of the People of Hadith, Fiqh, and Usool in this matter, and from the books that were authored:

– “Al-I’tibar fee Al-Nasikh wa Al-Mansookh min Al-Athaar” by Al-Hazimi
– “Nasikh Al-Hadith wa Mansookhuh” by ibn Shaheen
– “Rusookh Al-Akhbar fee Mansookh Al-Akhbar” by Al-Ja’bari,
– “A’lam Al-‘Alam ba’d Rusookhih behaqaiq Nasikh al-Hadith wa Mansoukhih” by Ibn Al-Jawzi
“Ikhbar Ahl Al-Rusookh fe Al-Fiqh wa Al-Hadith Bi Miqdar Al-Mansoukh min Al-Hadith” by Ibn Al-Jawzi, and others.

This is also what is mentioned by the commentators and explainers of prophetic traditions in their books, such as: Ibn ‘Abd Al-Bar in “Al-Tamheed” and “Al-Istizkar”, Ibn Hajar in “Fath Al-Bari”, Al-‘Ieni in “‘Umdat Al-Qari”, Ibn Daqeeq Al-Eid in “Al-Ihkam”, and Ibn Al-‘Arabi in “Al-Qabas”.

This is also what is declared by the people of Fiqh in their books, such as: Al-Nawawi in his “Majmou’”, Ibn Qudamah in “Al-Mughni”, Al-Kasani in “Badaai’ Al-Sanaii”, and Ibn Rushd in “Bidayat Al-Mujtahid”.

And it is also what is stated by the compilers of the Sunnah, such as: Al-Bukhari, the authors of the Sunan, Abi ‘Awanah, Ibn Khuzaima, Ibn Hibban, Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Tahawi, and others.

It is also what is declared by the four Imams in their books.

Thus, this matter is the view held by the Scholars of Hadith, Fiqh, Tafseer, and Usool…

As for Consensus:

The consensus [about this matter] was transmitted by more than one [scholar], as it is the consensus of the companions where no one from among them rejected this, and [this consensus] was transmitted by Ibn Al-Hamam in Al-Tahrir (Tayseer Al-Tahrir 3/181).

Al-Bajy said: “All the Muslims are on the view of the possibility of abrogation” (Ahkam Al-Fusool p. 391).

Al-Shawkani said: “Abrogation is possible by common sense, and has occurred in reality with no dispute in this between the Muslims, except what was narrated from Abi Muslim Al-Asfahani” (Irshad Al-Fuhool p. 276).

And refer to: Sharh Tanqeeh Al-Fusool (p.303), Ham’ Al-Jawami’ Bisharh Al-Muhala (2/88), Al-‘Adad ‘Ala ibn Al-Hajib (2/188), Nihayat Al-Sawl (2/167), Sharh Al-Kawkab Al-Muneer (3/535), Al-Muswadah (p.195), Usool Al-Sarkhasi (2/54-55), Al-Wusool ila Al-Sawl by ibn Burhan (2/14-15), Al-Ibhaaj fee Sharh Al-Minhaj (2/249).

As For [it being] Common Sense and Rationally Acceptable:

1) It is said that scholars had agreed that rulings of the sharee’ah have a reasoning behind them that can be explained by the benefit and the interest [arising from them], and these benefits can change, such that something might be of benefit at one time, but not another, and the actions of Allah – the all Mighty – have a good reason behind them, and nothing is done by Him except what has a wisdom behind it and a benefit to His slaves.

2) There is nothing rational that would prevent the changing of rulings and their abrogation. And if there is nothing that would prevent such a thing, then this would imply possibility.

3) That the Islamic sharee’ah had abrogated the sharee’ahs of all those that were before us, and whoever attests to this should also attest that abrogation is possible within our own sharee’ah.

As for rejecting Abrogation, it was transmitted only from Abu muslim Al-Asfahani, who was from the Mu’tazilah, and the authenticity of this about him is differed upon:

– It was said that this is not true about him.

– It was also said that he just rejected calling it that, rather he calls it takhsees (making it specific) not naskh (abrogation). Thus this dispute is only in wordings not on its permissibility.

It was also said, that if what is transmitted about him is true, and he rejected abrogation itself (not just the wording), then his opinion is considered Shaaz [odd, and is] against the Book of Allah, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims that were before him. Abu Al-Husien Al-Basri, who was a Mu’tazilate like Abi Muslim, said: “The Muslims agreed that it is fit for the rulings to be abrogated, except for a strange narration of a few who [claimed that] such thing is not befitting” (Al-Mu’tamad 1/370).

Al-Shawkani said: “Abrogation is rationally acceptable, and has occurred in reality with no dispute in this between the Muslims, except what was narrated from Abi Muslim Al-Asfahani, where he said that it is rationally acceptable, but never actually occurred. Now, if that is authentic about him, it would demonstrate that he is ignorant about this sharee’ah in an outrageous way. What is even stranger than this is what was narrated about him of the dispute in the books of the sharee’ah, [if that is true, then this would lead to ignoring, any dispute that arise from him] because the dispute of those who attained scholarship is the one that we take into consideration, not the dispute of those whose ignorance reached this level” (Irshad Al-Fuhool p.276).

As for the evidences for this strange opinion (the rejecter’s opinion):

From among the proofs of this Shaaz (odd) opinion (of the rejecters):

1) That Allah says in the Quran: {Falsehood (Baatil) cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy} (41:42).

The point they are trying to make is Allah the Exalted stated that no falsehood can approach the Quran, thus if abrogation was possible than falsehood would have approached it.

It was replied to them that the meaning of falsehood here is lies, corruptions, and alterations similar to what happened to the previous Books, thus the above verse would agree with what Allah said in another verse: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the message [i.e. the Quran], and indeed, We will be its guardian}(15:9).

It is also said that what is meant by falsehood in the verse is Satan, and that he would be incapable of adding or removing anything from it.

……

Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari said in his Tafseer about the verse: “And the most correct of these views according to us, that its meaning is: One of falsehood is incapable of altering it with all his plots and conspiracies, or changing any of its meanings, and that is what is meant by ‘approaching it from before it’, or making any addition in it, and that is what is meant by ‘approaching it from behind it’”.

2) They said: Saying that abrogation is permissible, would lead to saying that Bidaa’ is possible on Allah the all-Mighty (i.e. means that He ruled something, then discovered something He didn’t know before, so He changed his ruling), and since we must exalt Allah from such a thing, that would prohibit the occurrence of abrogation.

What they mean by Bidaa’ is for something to appear and become apparent after it was hidden, and that is not the case except for He who was ignorant of the thing before it was made clear to him and apparent.

The answer to their claim is:

That Allah – the most High and Exalted – had decreed the first ruling, while knowing that He will abrogate it with the second. He the All-Mighty had already known what was and what is to be, and His knowledge had encompassed all things, thus there is no Bidaa’ here [to Allah], rather this Bidaa’ happened to us when we knew about the second ruling after its revelation.

September 16, 2007

Tafsir of verse-ayah (3:180) : “To Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth”

Filed under: Quran, tafsir — Um Abdullah M. @ 11:14 am

Allah azza wa jal said – translation of the meaning-: 
(And let not those who [greedily] withhold what Allah has given them of His bounty ever think that it is better for them. Rather, it is worse for them. Their necks will be encircled by what they withheld on the Day of Resurrection. And to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth. And Allah, with what you do, is [fully] Acquainted. ) H\K\saheeh translation (3:180)

A note before quoting the tafsir of the ayah:

“inheriting” that happens between humans is of things that they don’t “own”, it is things that belonged to someone else, and then after the “owners” death they “inherited” it.

but for Allah azza wa jal, everything is His (He owns it), and it belongs to Him, he is al Malik, everything is Allah’s “mulk”.

So for humans they are taking something that was not there’s at first, then they owned it after “inheriting” it, while Allah azza wa jal is taking something that is His, that belongs to Him, so it was His before and after “inheriting”.

Imam at Tabari rahimahu Allah said in his tafsir of ayah (3:180):

Rough translation:

(The tafsir of His saying : “and to God belongs the inheritance of the heavens and earth; and God is aware of the things you do

Abu Ja’far (at Tabari) said: Allah -jal thana’uhu- meant by that: that He is the alive that does not die, and He remains after the perishing of all of His creation.

and if one says: so what does His saying mean: “and to Him belongs the inheritance of the heavens and the earth” and “the inheritance“, that is known, is the transfering of the property\ownership from the owner to the inheriter, after his death, and to Allah is the dunya (this world) before the perishing of the creation and after it ?

It is said (to him): the meaning of that is what we described, His (Allah’s) describing of Himself with eternal existance, and His informing of His creation that He has decreed their perishing.

And because the property of the owner becomes inheritance after his death, so Allah azza wa jal said: “to Allah is the inheritance of the heavens and the earth” informing, by that, that the property of all of His creation is transfering to Allah (going back to Him) after their deaths, and that no one but will perish except Him (Allah), for He is the one when perishing all of His creation, and all of their property is removed from them, no one will remain for their property to go to except Him.

and the meaning of the ayah: “And let not those who [greedily] withhold what Allah has given them of His bounty ever think that it is better for them. Rather, it is worse for them. Their necks will be encircled by what they withheld on the Day of Resurrection” (3:180), after they perish (the niggard\greedy) and their property is removed from them, in the time that they don’t own anything, to Allah becomes its intheritance, and the inheritance of rest of His creation.

August 1, 2007

AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH (regarding abrogation)

Filed under: Intermediate, Quran — Um Abdullah M. @ 5:22 pm

AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH

The revelations from Allah as found in the Qur’an touch on a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the prophets, day of judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings), because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed.
While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law (shari’a) for their respective communities.
The Arabic words ‘nasikh’ and ‘mansukh’ are both derived from the same root word ‘nasakha’ which carries meanings such as ‘to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate’.

The word nasikh (an active participle) means ‘the abrogating’, while mansukh (passive) means ‘the abrogated’. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur’anic revelation, which have been ‘abrogated’ by others.
Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called ‘mansukh’ while the abrogating one is called ‘nasikh’.
The Qur’an on Naskh The principle of naskh (abrogation) is referred to in the Qur’an itself and is not a later historical development:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou that God has power over all things?’ (2: 106). [Some however say that this refers to the revelations before the Qur’an, which have now been substituted by the Qur’an itself. See Mawdudi. The Meaning of the Qur’an, Lahore,
1967, Vol. I, p.102. note 109.]

How it came about When the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as something new, and different from their way of life, it was introduced in stages. The Qur’an brought important changes gradually, to allow the people to adjust to the new prescriptions.
Example: There are three verses in the Qur’an concerning the drinking of wine. Wine drinking was very widespread in pre-Islamic times and, although a social evil, highly esteemed. The three verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4).
Why it is important Knowledge of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh is important because it concerns the correct and exact application of the laws of Allah. It is specifically concerned with legal revelations:

 It is one of the important pre-conditions for explanation (tafsir) of the Qur’an.
 It is one of the important pre-conditions for understanding and application of the Islamic law (hukm,
shari’a).
 It sheds light on the historical development of the Islamic legal code.
 It helps to understand the immediate meaning of the ayat concerned.
Tafsir (explanation of the Qur’an) or legal ruling is not acceptable from a person who does not have such knowledge.

How do we know it?
As in the field of asbab al-nuzul, the information about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh cannot be accepted upon mere personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should go back to the Prophet and his Companions.

The report must also clearly state which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh.
Some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:

 Report from the Prophet or Companions.
 Ijma’ (consensus of the umma upon what is nasikh and what mansukh).
 Knowledge about which part of the Qur’an preceded another part in the history of revelation. [Qattan,
op.cit., p. 199]
Example:
Narrated Mujahid (regarding the verse):
Those of you who die and leave wives behind, they (their wives) shall await (as regards their
marriage) for four months and ten days (2: 234).
The widow, according to this verse, was to spend this period of waiting with her husband’s family, so Allah revealed: Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e. widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year’s maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they leave (their residence) there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is honourable (i.e. Lawful marriage) (2: 240).
So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra maintenance for seven months and 20 nights and that is the completion of one year. If she wished, she could stay (in her husband’s home) according to the will, and she could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: Without turning them out, but if they leave (the residence) there is no blame on you.
So the idea (i.e. four months and ten days) is obligatory for her. ‘Ata’ said: Ibn ‘Abbas said: This verse i.e. the statement of Allah … without turning one out … cancelled the obligation of staying for the waiting period in her late husband’s house, and she can complete this period wherever she likes.
‘Ata’ said: If she wished, she could complete her ‘idda by staying in her late husband’s residence according to the will or leave it according to Allah’s statement:

‘There is no blame on you for what they do with themselves.’
‘Ata’ added: Later the regulations of inheritance came and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in her dead husband’s house) so she could complete the ‘idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary to provide her with a residence.
Ibn Abbas said: This verse abrogated her (i.e. the widow’s) dwelling in her dead husband’s house and she could complete the ‘idda (i.e. four months and ten days) (wherever she liked, as Allah’s statement says: …’without turning them out …’
[Bukhari, VI, No. 54.]
This report explains clearly which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh. Mujahid was one of the wellknown tab’iun and Ibn ‘Abbas was a Companion of the Prophet.

What is Abrogated?
According to some scholars the Qur’an abrogates only the Qur’an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101.
According to them the Qur’an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur’an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi’i. [For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit.,
pp. 12345; for a brief summary of Ash-Shafi’i’s views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi’is Risala, Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.]
Others are of the opinion that the Qur’an may abrogate the Qur’an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53: 34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:
 Qur’an abrogates Qur’an.
 Qur’an abrogates sunna.
 Sunna abrogates Qur’an.
 Sunna abrogates sunna.
[Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.]

In this discussion, we shall only consider the abrogation in the Qur’an, and leave aside the abrogation in the sunna.

Three Kinds of Naskh in the Qur’an
[Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.]
The scholars have divided abrogation into three kinds:

 Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
 Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
 Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

For abrogation of the recited (verse) together with its legal ruling:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear
sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and
Allah’s apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and
recited by the Muslims). [34 Muslim, II, No. 3421.]

For abrogation of a legal ruling without the recited (verse):
‘O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their dowers; and
those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to
thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles
and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates
her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; – this only for thee and not for the
believers (at large);We know what we have appointed for them as to their wives and the
captives whom their right hands possess; – in order that there should be no difficulty for
thee and God is oft-forgiving, most merciful’ (33: 50).
‘It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other)
wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as
handmaidens); and God doth watch over all things’ (33: 52).
This is one of the few very clear examples of naskh, though only concerning the Prophet specifically, since for Muslims in general the number of wives has been restricted to four. (Sura 4:3).

For abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas reported that ‘Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s messenger (may peace
be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and he sent
down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We
recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s messenger (may peace be upon him)
awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we
also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget
it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by
abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s book for married men and
women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession. [Muslim,
III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.]
The punishment of stoning for adultery by married people has been retained in the sunna, while it is not included in the
Qur’an .

The Abrogated Verses
There are, according to Ibn Salama, [Op cit., see pp.6-8 for the names of these suras.] a well-known author on the
subject:
 43 suras with neither nasikh or mansukh.
 6 suras with nasikh but no mansukh.
 40 suras with mansukh but no nasikh.
 25 suras with both nasikh and mansukh.

According to Suyuti’s Itqan there are 21 instances in the Qur’an, where a revelation has been abrogated by another.
He also indicates that there is a difference of opinion about some of these: e.g. 4: 8, 24: 58, etc. [Itqan, II, pp.20-3; Kamal, op.cit., pp.101-9 also gives Suyuti’s complete list.]
Some scholars have attempted to reduce the number of abrogations in the Qur’an even further, by explaining the relationships between the verses in some special ways, e.g. by pointing out that no legal abrogation is involved, or that
for certain reasons the naskh is not genuine
Shah Waliullah (d. 1759) the great Muslim scholar from India only retained the following 5 out of Suyuti’s 21 cases as genuine:

Mansukh 2: 180 nasikh 4: 11, 12
Mansukh 2:240 nasikh 2: 234.
Mansukh 8:65 nasikh 8: 62.
Mansukh 30:50 nasikh 33: 52.
Mansukh 58: 12 nasikh 58: 13.

A case listed by Suyuti, which has no direct legal implication is the following:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: When the verse: ‘If there are 20 amongst you, patient and persevering,
they will overcome two hundred’, was revealed, it became hard on the Muslims, when it became
compulsory that one Muslim ought not to flee before 10 (non-Muslims) so Allah lightened the order by
revealing: ‘but now Allah has lightened your (task) for He knows that there is weakness in
you. But (even so) if there are 100 amongst you who are patient and persevering, they will
overcome 200 (non-Muslims)’ (8: 66). So when Allah reduced the number of enemies that Muslims
should withstand, their patience and perseverence against the enemy decreased as much as their task
was lightened for them. [Bukhari, VI, No.176.]
Still others hold that there are no genuine (sahih) reports available on this issue, going back to the Prophet, while those going back to the Companions contradict each other. [Ali, M.M.: The Religion of Islam, Lahore, 1936, p.32. It may be pointed out that Ali’s treatment of the subject is not very thorough. Of the three examp1es he cites in support of his opinion (‘in most cases, where a report is traceable to one Companion who held a certain verse to have been abrogated, there is another report traceable to another Companion, through the fact that the verse was not abrogated’ – p. 33) two are definitely not in his favour, while the third can be easily explained. His first case concerns Sura 2:180 (inheritance). It has certainly been superseded by other verses, e.g. 4:7-9 and that is probably all that is meant, when saying it is mansukh Ali’s second case, ‘2:184, is considered by Ibn ‘Umar as having been abrogated while Ibn ‘Abbas says it was not’ . See below, where I have quoted this very hadith from Ibn ‘Abbas (Bukhari, VI, No.32) where Ibn ‘Abbas himself explains why he does not hold it as abrogated. The third case is, like the first one, definitely not in support of Ali: ‘2: 240
was abrogated according to Ibn Zubair, while Mujahid says it was not’. This is wrong, see Sahih Bukhari, VI, Nos. 53 and 54, where both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid hold the verse to be abrogated. Furthermore both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid are tabi’un, and not Companions (sahaba).]
Therefore to them the issue of nasikh wa al mansukh is perhaps not of great importance. However, it is clear from the Qur’an itself, (e.g. in the case of inheritance, 2: 180; 4: 7-9, etc.) that abrogation occurred occasionally. Hence it is wrong to completely ignore the subject.
Abrogation and Specification There is of course a difference between abrogation and specification. By the latter is meant that one revelation explains in more detail or according to specific circumstances how another revelation should be understood.
Example: Sura 2:183 says ‘O you who believe, fasting is prescribed to you …’
Narrated ‘Ata’ that he heard Ibn ‘Abbas reciting the Divine verse ‘for those who can do it is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent’ (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). [Bukhari, VI, No. 32.]
It is quite clear that the second verse (2:184) does not abrogate the rule of fasting from the first verse (2:183) but explains that in a specific case, that of feeble old people, there is a way of making up for the loss of fast.
In the same way the verses concerning intoxicating drinks can be understood as specifications rather than abrogations (see 4:43;2:219;5:93-4).
Summary The Qur’an, in 2:106, refers to the concept of naskh. However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of the Qur’an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur’an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. ‘A’isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of the Qur’anic recitation, and only ‘Umar reported that the ‘verse of stoning’ had been included in the Qur’anic text.
These legal rulings are not included in the Qur’an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh, based on the words of Ibn ‘Abbas or Mujahid alone, are to be judged by the same measure.
However, as mentioned there remain a small number of verses which, as far as can be ascertained from the internal evidence of the Qur’an, have been superseded by other verses in the Qur’an.

(From: Ulum al-Quran by Ahmad von Denffer)

July 7, 2007

Ayah-Verse “And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah…”

Filed under: Beginner, Quran — Um Abdullah M. @ 9:58 am

  
Allah [may He be Glorified] said:

And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allâh (He is the ruling Judge). (And say O Muhammad (peace be upon him) to these polytheists:) Such is Allâh, my Lord in Whom I put my trust, and to Him I turn (in all of my affairs and) in repentance.” (42:10)

Commentary:

And in whatsoever you differ” i.e. anything of the basics of religion and its subsidiaries in which you differ.

The decision thereof is with Allah” i.e. everything should be referred to the Book of Allah and to the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him). Whatever their judgement may be, it should be accepted to the exclusion of any other judgement.

Such is Allah, my Lord” i.e. He is the Lord Who created mankind, provided them with sustenance and disposes of all affairs. He is also the One Who decides for His slaves by means of His legislation that covers all of their affairs.

This verse is an obvious evidence that the consensus of the Ummah on any thing is a valid proof that should be applied, because Allah [may He be Glorified] did not command us to return to His Book except when there is a difference regarding anything. Whatever the Ummah agreed upon should therefore be adopted because the entire Ummah cannot agree on an error or on something that contradicts the rulings of the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him).

In Whom I put my trust” i.e. he (peace be upon him) and every Muslim should depend on Allah, believing that He Alone is the One that can bring about any good or prevent any harm.

And to Him I turn in repentance” i.e. he (peace be upon him) and every Muslim should turn to Allah with their hearts and bodies obeying and worshipping Him Alone.

Thus, reliance and repentance are two great principles, which are often mentioned in the Book of Allah, because if they gather in a person he will result in his perfection. Otherwise, he will be imperfect and inefficient. Allah [may He be Glorified] said: “You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything).” (1:5) He also said: “So worship Him (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)).” (11:123) and put your trust in Him”.

See Tafsir Ibn Sa’di, p.699. (Al-Luwaihiq Edition).

Blog at WordPress.com.