First of all, I want to know if there are any Hadiths that talk about abrogation. A quote would be nice.
Disclaimer: I do not believe in abrogation. I believe all the verses in Quran are valid and not even a single letter is abrogated. Though, I am open to other opinions.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
do you believe in abrogation across different revelations... e.g. the Injil abrogating/permitting something forbidden in the Tawrah?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
Yes, I do.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
so you accept then that Allah, if He so chooses, can abrogate one of His revelations/verses/injunctions by means of another
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
Yes.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
why should the Qur'an be any different?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
First of all, your example of Injeel abrogating Turah and Quran abrogating Injeel, would entail that there is a totally new set of revelation after Quran that abrogate Quran. I don't believe such a revelation exist.
Secondly, Quran states in the very beginning: [2:2/3] *This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; *...]
If it wasn't perfect than Allah would have claimed part of it is perfect, part of it isn't.
Now, lets go back to Hadiths. I am trying to figure out where and when did the concept of abrogation started? Did AnHazoor (saw) said that because of this new verse please remove or at least discredit the first revealed verses? Did the Khulafa-e-Rashdeen said anything to the likes?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
Because in none of the other books has Allah promised that those would be free from abrogation. In Quran, he promises that it will remain in its purest form till the end of times.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
^ we aren't talking about whether the Qur'an is preserved, we are discussing whether it contains abrogation... there's a difference
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
logically that makes no sense… why do you accept and allow Allah to abrogate across different revelations but not within the same revelation?..
your assumption is that abrogation = imperfection… it doesn’t… if we follow your logic it entails that injunctions in the Tawrah abrogated by the Injil were imperfect and doubtful… they weren’t
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
Logically it does make sense. Because revelations were within a very specific time period, while the time period between Injeel and torah and Quran is of centuries.
Injeel abrogated Torah because it was imperfect (due to time specific teachings) and doubtful (due to changes made by the people over time). Quran claims to be above both of these concepts while abrogating Injeel and Torah for these reasons.
If abrogation is to be considered even a viable concept in Islam, there must be some Hadiths about it. It is hard to imagine that AnHazoor (saw) didn't mention at all that a certain verse should be discredited when it was abrogated.
If Hadiths supporting abrogation doesn't exists, it is no harm in admitting that. I am just trying to understand the roots of such a belief.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
this is hardly convincing… Allah is allowed to abrogate verses if there’s a sufficient (unspecified!) time gap between revelations yet is not allowed to do so if the gap to us seems short…
leaving abrogation aside… how then should we understand the lightening of the burden when facing the enemy from a ratio of 1 to 10 down to 1 to 2 (see Qur’an, 8:65-66)?
clarifying a previously corrupted teaching (due to human tampering) isn’t abrogation, it’s correction…
do you accept abrogation within hadith?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
Gupguppy, you made your point clear that as Quran abrogated Injeel and Torah and so it can abrogate itself, and trust me it is perfectly fine with me that you believe that way. To me such a belief is a personal opinion.
What I want to know is that if your belief has any basis in Hadiths, because I know as a fact that Quran does not state that it contradicts itself nor do I believe it does, so a verse which was revealed previously should be ignored, and as always the next source is Hadiths or Sunnah, and so I ask of anyone to point one out.
Apart from that I can go on with the argument that Quran doesn’t abrogate itself because of it's claim of universality from the beginning and difference between the message from Injeel and Torah etc. But that's not what I am after.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
^ okay, leaving abrogation aside... how then should we understand the lightening of the burden when facing the enemy from a ratio of 1 to 10 down to 1 to 2 (see Qur'an, 8:65-66)?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
What about these verses?
008.065
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.
PICKTHAL: 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.
SHAKIR: O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
008.066
YUSUFALI: For the present, Allah hath lightened your (task), for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: But (even so), if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.
PICKTHAL: 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.
SHAKIR: For the present Allah has made light your burden, and He knows that there is weakness in you; so if there are a hundred patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand they shall overcome two thousand by Allah's permission, and Allah is with the patient.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
yes, feel free to answer the question whenever you are ready...
v.65 says just 20 should be expected to overcome 200 etc. but the ratio is lowered in v.66 saying that now 100 are expected to overcome 200 because Allah has lightened the burden... if that is not an abrogation of sort then what is it?
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
It is not an abrogation at all.
The first verse suggests that 20 believers should be able to over come 200 and in the very next verse Allah says that He knows that they are week (most probably due to lack of war gear & resources) but still their strength of faith will let 100 over come 200. It is not to say that 20 cannot over come 200 anymore, because they did at Yurmuk where 60,000 over took more than a million.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
The numbers of the battle of yurmuk are not accurate .. different historians have it differently.
Re: Revisiting Abrogation
That Allah says “Now hath Allah lightened your burden” shows an amendment to the earlier instruction… that’s abrogation
As Ibn Abbas (r) said: "When the verse ‘If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred’ was revealed it was prescribed that one (person) should not flee from ten, then there was revealed ‘Now hath Allah lightened your burden’ so it became prescribed that one hundred should not flee from two hundred.” (Sahih al Bukhari 6:175)
that’s beside the point… even one person might overcome 200… that doesn’t cancel out the fact that the expectation is lightened in v.66