Ahmadi view on abrogation

[Gharib]

I would like to know how Ahmadi's interpret the following verses and I would also like to know the general view on abrogation if that's no trouble.

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
(Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #106)

And when We change a Verse (of the Qur'an,) in place of another - and Allah knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سل&#1605 are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.
(An-Nahl, Chapter #16, Verse #101)

 

[DawudTalut]

I would like to know how Ahmadi's interpret the following verses and I would also like to know the general view on abrogation if that's no trouble.

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
(Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #106)

And when We change a Verse (of the Qur'an,) in place of another - and Allah knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سل&#1605 are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.
(An-Nahl, Chapter #16, Verse #101)

Peace be on you.

Following is a copied quoation with reference at the end:

"The claim made that the Holy Quran has itself declared that some of its verses have been abrogated by others…later verses abrogating earlier ones etc. is totally unsustainable. The verse cited in support of this allegation usually is [2:107]

Whatever Sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?

Commentary: It is mistakenly inferred from this verse that some verses of the Qur’an have been abrogated. The conclusion is patently erroneous and unwarranted. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the Ayah spoken of in this verse as being abrogated, refers to the previous Revelations. It is pointed out that the previous Scriptures contained two kinds of commandments: (a) Those which, owing to changed conditions and to the universality of the new Revelation, required abrogation. (b) Those containing eternal truths which needed resuscitation so that people might be reminded of the forgotten truth. It was, thereof, necessary to abrogate certain portion of those Scriptures and bring in their place new ones, and also to restore the lost ones. So, God abrogated some portions of the previous Revelations, substituting them with new and better ones, and at the same time re-introduced the missing general spirit of the Quranic teaching. The Qur’an has abrogated all previous Scriptures; for, better than all the old Laws, but is also meant for all men for all times. An inferior teaching verse the word Nansakh (We abrogate) relates to the word Bi-Khairin (one better) and the word Nunsiha (we cause to be forgotten) relates to the word Bi-Mithliha (the like thereof), meaning that when God abrogates a certain thing He brings a better one in its place and when He causes a thing to be forgotten, He resuscitates it. It is admitted by Jewish scholars themselves that after the Israelites were carried away in captivity to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib.).

There is another verse that is sometimes quoted in this context: 16:102. Here also the meaning that somehow a verse abrogation is meant is quite untenable:

102. And when We bring one Sign in place of another1577 and Allah knows best the object of what He reveals they say, thou art but a fabricator.’ Nay, but most of them know not.

1577. The meaning is: “When We avert or delay punishment on account of a change for the better on the part of those who are threatened with it.” There is no reference here to the abrogation of any of the verses of the Qur’an. There is no verse in the Qur’an which clashes with any other verse of the Book and which may therefore have to be regarded as abrogated. All parts of the Qur’an support and corroborate one another. There is nothing in the context either to suggest any reference to the idea of abrogation.

Short URL of this page to share Reply to allegation that Holy Quran is composed of verses cancelling each other? « Islam Ahmadiyya "

 

[Union]

Peace be on you.

Following is a copied quoation with reference at the end:

"The claim made that the Holy Quran has itself declared that some of its verses have been abrogated by others…later verses abrogating earlier ones etc. is totally unsustainable. The verse cited in support of this allegation usually is [2:107]

Whatever Sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?

Commentary: It is mistakenly inferred from this verse that some verses of the Qur’an have been abrogated. The conclusion is patently erroneous and unwarranted. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the Ayah spoken of in this verse as being abrogated, refers to the previous Revelations. It is pointed out that the previous Scriptures contained two kinds of commandments: (a) Those which, owing to changed conditions and to the universality of the new Revelation, required abrogation. (b) Those containing eternal truths which needed resuscitation so that people might be reminded of the forgotten truth. It was, thereof, necessary to abrogate certain portion of those Scriptures and bring in their place new ones, and also to restore the lost ones. So, God abrogated some portions of the previous Revelations, substituting them with new and better ones, and at the same time re-introduced the missing general spirit of the Quranic teaching. The Qur’an has abrogated all previous Scriptures; for, better than all the old Laws, but is also meant for all men for all times. An inferior teaching verse the word Nansakh (We abrogate) relates to the word Bi-Khairin (one better) and the word Nunsiha (we cause to be forgotten) relates to the word Bi-Mithliha (the like thereof), meaning that when God abrogates a certain thing He brings a better one in its place and when He causes a thing to be forgotten, He resuscitates it. It is admitted by Jewish scholars themselves that after the Israelites were carried away in captivity to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib.).

There is another verse that is sometimes quoted in this context: 16:102. Here also the meaning that somehow a verse abrogation is meant is quite untenable:

102. And when We bring one Sign in place of another1577 and Allah knows best the object of what He reveals they say, thou art but a fabricator.’ Nay, but most of them know not.

1577. The meaning is: “When We avert or delay punishment on account of a change for the better on the part of those who are threatened with it.” There is no reference here to the abrogation of any of the verses of the Qur’an. There is no verse in the Qur’an which clashes with any other verse of the Book and which may therefore have to be regarded as abrogated. All parts of the Qur’an support and corroborate one another. There is nothing in the context either to suggest any reference to the idea of abrogation.

Short URL of this page to share Reply to allegation that Holy Quran is composed of verses cancelling each other? « Islam Ahmadiyya "

:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: ..

 

[Rational_Mind]

Our view as respect to the Holy Quran extends so far that we state that Bismillah is a part of the verses of each Surah it precedes. We accept it as a verse and make sure it is numbered as we feel even this minute detail cannot be missed. We believe that the Holy Prophet (saw) did not simply just place it there but it is a fundamental part of each Surah that it begins with.

To think that we would possibly ever accept a theory of abrogation is far far from a possibility. The Promised Messiah (as) also came to eradicate this very theory that somehow was innovated in Islam much later. Most of its basis was on the verses that DawudTalut has already responded to in his post. For a fuller discussion one can refer to the English Commentary under each verse (2:107, 16:102). It gives reference to the meanings of important words which were unfortunately wrongly taken as to refer to the Quran itself when this is not correct according to translation.

Moreover, a one can find under the index references to two other verses that refute abrogation theory (Index). And the other verses (ranging all they way up to 239) that people have accused to contradict and hence were abrogated were refuted by the Promised Messiah (as). He said the faculty of mans understanding was faulty and unfortunately the blame was laid on the Quran. He clarified the interpretation of verses and showed they are perfectly harmonious, the contradiction was in human interpretation but not in the revelation of Allah (swt). The harmonious interpretation of these verses can also be found under the commentary of them.

 

[F0uad]

I wonder if people here have some basic knowledge of al-nasikh and wa al-mansukh.
I also have a question if you do not belief in Abrogation to be part of Islamic belief about these two verses: (2: 234) and (2: 240)?

 

[Union]

I wonder if people here have some basic knowledge of al-nasikh and wa al-mansukh.
I also have a question if you do not belief in Abrogation to be part of Islamic belief about these two verses: (2: 234) and (2: 240)?

2:234 is about the marriage of the spouse of deceased and rolled to 2:235 while 2:240 is talking about the provisions and support of the same . Abrogation !?

 

[Rational_Mind]

2:234 is about the marriage of the spouse of deceased and rolled to 2:235 while 2:240 is talking about the provisions and support of the same . Abrogation !?

He believes that the verse:

[2:241] And those of you who die and leave behind wives shall bequeath to their wives provision for a year without their being turned out. But if they themselves go out, there shall be no blame upon you in regard to any proper thing which they do concerning themselves. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.

is abrogated by (God forbid) the following to verses:

[2:235] And those of you who die and leave wives behind, these (wives) shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days. And when they have reached the end of their period, no sin shall lie on you in anything that they do with regard to themselves according to what is fair. And Allah is aware of what you do.

and

[4:13] And you shall have half of that which your wives leave, if they have no child; but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of that which they leave, after the payment of any bequests they may have bequeathed or of debt. And they shall have a fourth of that which you leave, if you have no child; but if you have a child, then they shall have an eighth of that which you leave, after the payment of any bequests you may have bequeathed or of debt. And if there be a man or a woman whose heritage is to be divided and he or she has neither parent nor child, and he or she has a brother or a sister, then each one of them shall have a sixth. But if they be more than that, then they shall be equal sharers in one-third, after the payment of any bequests which may have been bequeathed or of debt, without prejudice to the debt. This is an injunction from Allah, and Allah is All-Knowing, Forbearing.

Some people have erroneously believed that there is a contradiction among these verses. It is because the time period prescribed for a widow to wait after marriage is four months and ten days which they falsely believe contradicts with the time period prescribed to have provisions for one year. Somehow, they also feel that the inheritance contradicts with provisions for a year, which I fail to see how that is true, I think this is just an attempt to give additional strength to their argument.

The correct view, from the Ahmadiyya Perspective, as taught by the Promised Messiah (as), is as follows:
-Widows have a time period in which they cannot Marry, four months and 10 days, which is longer than divorce period because out of respect of the Husband. In this time period it ensures that the Widow is not pregnant.
-The additional provision for a year is given to help the Widow if she requires, it provides living and maintenance. This is especially needed in the case that either the Widow is pregnant, one year provides time for the delivery of a child. It also provides time for her to chose to arrange her living, such as finding a place to stay, getting married, etc. This time period is an additional convenience given to the Widow, it doesn't contradict. It is an option she has to take advantage of, the period of four months and 10 days is a requirement which has the intent of clarifying her state if she is pregnant and respect of her late Husband.
-The difference is very clear in the statement "But if they themselves go out, there shall be no blame upon you in regard to any proper thing which they do concerning themselves" clearly shows that after 4 months and 10 days they can leave and get married, if they chose to.

 

[F0uad]

I never said they was a contradiction.. just pointing out since this is a Dir i will not argue.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I never said they was a contradiction.. just pointing out since this is a Dir i will not argue.

I stated that your view is that the verse is abrogated. If it is not such I humbly apologize, I should not have assumed it.

My response was directed to the view of some people who believe it contradicts hence, it was overwritten....

Also, I do not have an intent to debate such a topic due to the nature of it, I would rather discuss if anyone is looking to get out of the theory of abrogation. I respect your due respect for the DIR of not debating it here, thanks.

 

[muiz.sg]

Sorry for hijacking the post, may I ask whether the Ahmadi's believe in what most Sunni Muslims believe regarding verses in the Holy Koran which have been
'taken out' of the Holy Koran, but their laws are still retained? Verses such as reported to be claimed narrated by Umar regarding the stoning punishment for married adulterers.


Or rather, do Ahmadis view that particular narration to be fabricated?

Wassalam

 

[Rational_Mind]

Sorry for hijacking the post, may I ask whether the Ahmadi's believe in what most Sunni Muslims believe regarding verses in the Holy Koran which have been
'taken out' of the Holy Koran, but their laws are still retained? Verses such as reported to be claimed narrated by Umar regarding the stoning punishment for married adulterers.

Wassalam

Since the Quran itself has refuted this possibility, we cannot accept such a Hadith as it contradicts the Quran. Unless someone can explain an interpretation of the Hadith which would agree with the Quran we have to believe that Quran is perfect and superior to the writings and collections of mankind that were not enjoined the protection that is exclusive to the Holy Quran from any other scripture or writing.

It is also the case that certain punishments from the Torah were effective before the Holy Quran abrogated them. The study of Hadith shows that when a Quranic law was not prescribed yet the Holy Prophet (saw) would follow the law of the Torah. Unfortunately, people have confused the laws of the Torah with the laws of the Quran without realizing that the only reason some punishment were present where either that at that time a Quranic injunction was not revealed or the person requested to be judged under the law of the Torah (Holy Prophet (saw) always asked under which law a non-Muslim wanted to be given ruling from).

In Sahih Bukari there is on record that Jew and Jewess were stoned to death for adultery by the Holy Prophet (saw), but this was according to Jewish Law, which they wished to be judged by. The Jewish Law:

4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” [John 8:4-5]

In another Hadith it is found that the Holy Prophet (saw) prescribed this punishment over an incident. For some reason according to calculation of time it falls after the Quranic verse. There are two possibilities, one the human calculation is wrong as it may fall before the verse. The second, these people may have committed more than adultery, it is likely that this was a punishment for more than just adultery and people have identified them as adulters' and they may have done other heinous crimes that they were brought to justice for as well, such as murder. They may have been murderers and adulterers...

From my knowledge, the stoning is a punishment that is justifiable for the cases where a victim has been raped, this is at the discretion of the judge. As for married couples the Quran has stated the same punishment:

[24:3] The adulteress and the adulterer (or the fornicatress and the fornicator) — flog each one of them with a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain take hold of you in executing the judgment of Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.

[24:4] The adulterer (or fornicator) shall not marry but an adulteress (or fornicatress) or an idolatrous woman, and an adulteress (or fornicatress) shall not marry but an adulterer (or fornicator) or an idolatrous man. That indeed is forbidden to the believers.

If one takes the position that this punishment is for unmarried people only, then I will direct them to this verse:

[4:26] And whoso of you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, let him marry what your right hands possess, namely, your believing handmaids. And Allah knows your faith best; you are all one from another; so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair, they being chaste, not committing fornication, nor taking secret paramours. And if, after they are married, they are guilty of lewdness, they shall have half the punishment prescribed for free women. This is for him among you who fears lest he should commit sin. And that you restrain yourselves is better for you; and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

So now how would you possibly "half stone" somebody? I would like to see what the likelihood of a "half stoned" person surviving. Considering the revelation of the Quran was 1400 years ago, I don't think anyone would survive "half stoning". Secondly, it is beyond reason to believe that the such a punishment of death can be halved. It is now quite clear that it means half of the prescribed flogging.

After the revelation of the Quranic verse on punishment for adultery we, as Ahmadi Muslims, cannot possibly believe the Holy Prophet (saw) would have ever ever acted against the teachings of the Holy Quran. We can only believe that the Hadith has missed important parts due to it being conveyed over vast regions and only to be collected much later. To accept a Hadith that is contradictory to the Holy Quran is against our teachings.

 

[muiz.sg]

Thank you for your quick reply. That explanation sounds the most logical thus far..I have yet to find an illogical/irrational answer coming from the brothers here of the Ahmadi sect..

However, I would like to know, as a follow up to what has been said along the lines of The Holy Koran being superior, due to the promise of God to protect it, compared to man made compilations (Hadith), why then do the Ahmadis still hold on to a corrupted compilation, i.e. the Hadith?

Or perhaps I should ask this in another thread so as not to derail the topic?

 

[Rational_Mind]

Thank you for your quick reply. That explanation sounds the most logical thus far..I have yet to find an illogical/irrational answer coming from the brothers here of the Ahmadi sect..

However, I would like to know, as a follow up to what has been said along the lines of The Holy Koran being superior, due to the promise of God to protect it, compared to man made compilations (Hadith), why then do the Ahmadis still hold on to a corrupted compilation, i.e. the Hadith?

Or perhaps I should ask this in another thread so as not to derail the topic?

I will try to discuss this topic soon. It has come under a lot of interest recently. I may need some time as I have to try and cover various aspects of it.

 

[muiz.sg]

Thank you brother for the offer to help us in seeking the Truth.

Peace.

 

[F0uad]

Sorry for hijacking the post, may I ask whether the Ahmadi's believe in what most Sunni Muslims believe regarding verses in the Holy Koran which have been
'taken out' of the Holy Koran, but their laws are still retained? Verses such as reported to be claimed narrated by Umar regarding the stoning punishment for married adulterers.


Or rather, do Ahmadis view that particular narration to be fabricated?

Wassalam

Sunni's don't belief that verses are taken out of the Quran we belief those Laws were just not meant to be for the Quran as Mohammed(saws) mentions in the narrations.

 

[muiz.sg]

A quick Google of the narration:

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession."Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."


Saheeh Muslim
Book 017, Number 4194:

'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. 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 it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Brother, the above narrations clearly claim that the verses were first introduced as part of the Koran, and yet was removed afterwards.

Brother, I have been taught about the Rules of Nasikh wal Mansuh in a Madrasah before, a Madrasah with strong inclinations towards the Wahabbi movement (although they dislike using the term on their ownselves). I know this hadith.This Hadith forms the basis of one of the few 'types' of abrogation. I have been taught of all these and more during one of our lessons on Nasikh wal Mansuh. Even back then, even when I was still in Secondary school, I had difficulty in understanding why this verse was supposedly left out of the Koran ,and yet, its inhumane ruling still exists.

And yet, the answer from my teachers were all the same. "We hear, and we obey". So the question arises, what if you have heard wrongly?

We believe that only God is infallible, and yet we ascribe almost godly qualities to the companions of the Prophet, and to the tabiins, as if they would never err or never make a mistake. Strange.

That is why I have a new found immense respect to our brothers and sisters belonging to the Ahmadi sect, who painstakingly scrutinize narrations, without accepting them wholesale.

Edit: Forgive me if this sounds more of an argument. I am merely bringing light the Hadith mentioned in the discourse.

 

[Gharib]

Sunni's don't belief that verses are taken out of the Quran we belief those Laws were just not meant to be for the Quran as Mohammed(saws) mentions in the narrations.

There are verses (the text of) which have been taken out of the Qur'an. However, the ruling of some still applies regardless of the text not being there and the ruling of others doesn't apply.

 

[F0uad]

Muiz and Gharib here is my opinion on Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816 and 17:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3221517-post14.html

As for my opinion on Quranic verses being abrogated i think we have to open that on a Sunni section not here.

 

[Union]

@ Muiz
There is another one in Bukhari 8:82:817 >>

.....I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father.'.....