"Naskh ('abrogation') as a technical term is a key concept in the fully developed form of Islamic jurisprudence, theology, and Quranic commentary, and is a major conceptual tool for understanding the relationship between different commands and prohibitions in the Quran and the Sunnayh. It is a crucial concept for understanding how the Quran is actually used as a source of Islamic Law and practice, and thus many commentators devote considerable attention to this particular verse." (Nasr, Study Quran, p. 49)
The verse in question is: "No sign do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but that We bring that which is better than it or like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is powerful over all things?" This is the 106th verse of the second surah, al-Baqarah, here rendered as "The Cow."
We've discussed the concept of abrogations before, the notion that a later - chronological, not in the regular order of the Quran - revelation abrogated, either replacing or modifying an earlier revelation. It's certainly a fascinating concept, although also a maddening one. Scholars have argued, and continue to argue, about the number of Quranic verses that have been abrogated, with the estimates ranging from less than ten to hundreds. If God is omniscient and eternal, essentially existing across all time and space at every second, then why would would there be the need to replace or modify an earlier revelation. Certainly the argument could not be made that God made a mistake the first time around. The argument made in regards to alcohol, as we've discussed, is that humans weren't ready for a total ban initially, so God had to get there slowly and only reveal the total ban when people were ready. This also make me think that most of the abrogations were either harsh or at least more restrictive (but more on that later). If the point is that later revelations had to be made because humans didn't really understand the first revelations, then who is to say that they understand the newer ones?
Nasr continues:
"Although it is generally agreed that one Quranic ruling may abrogate another Quranic ruling revealed earlier in time, there has been considerable difference of opinion about other kinds of naskh, for example, whether Prophetic practice (Sunnah) can abrogate the Quran or vice versa, and whether the consensus of the learned community (ijma) can abrogate a ruling from the Quran or a hadith."
Obviously, this is a very confusing and sometimes contentious issue. Honestly, I'm puzzled by the argument that a consensus of the learned community could abrogate something from the Quran, mainly because is the argument not based on the notion that the opinion of a group of humans, albeit scholarly ones, would replace a revelation. And, to me, this brings us to my biggest problem with abrogations: they are, I would argue, by definition more about human interpretation and bias and less about divine revelation, which probably explains why the abrogations seem to always grow more harsh and/or more restrictive. Again, I think it's easy to cherry pick passages from the Quran to back up your own personal beliefs, and abrogations seem to have such potential to take us further and further away from the heart of the faith. This is why I always say that you need to look at your faith as a whole and not focus on little, sometimes debated, corners of it.
And, as always, I'll throw in my usual disclaimer that I speak for me and me alone, and I do not represent the vast majority of Muslims (I don't know why they're all so routinely wrong . . . 😌).
The verse in question is: "No sign do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but that We bring that which is better than it or like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is powerful over all things?" This is the 106th verse of the second surah, al-Baqarah, here rendered as "The Cow."
We've discussed the concept of abrogations before, the notion that a later - chronological, not in the regular order of the Quran - revelation abrogated, either replacing or modifying an earlier revelation. It's certainly a fascinating concept, although also a maddening one. Scholars have argued, and continue to argue, about the number of Quranic verses that have been abrogated, with the estimates ranging from less than ten to hundreds. If God is omniscient and eternal, essentially existing across all time and space at every second, then why would would there be the need to replace or modify an earlier revelation. Certainly the argument could not be made that God made a mistake the first time around. The argument made in regards to alcohol, as we've discussed, is that humans weren't ready for a total ban initially, so God had to get there slowly and only reveal the total ban when people were ready. This also make me think that most of the abrogations were either harsh or at least more restrictive (but more on that later). If the point is that later revelations had to be made because humans didn't really understand the first revelations, then who is to say that they understand the newer ones?
Nasr continues:
"Although it is generally agreed that one Quranic ruling may abrogate another Quranic ruling revealed earlier in time, there has been considerable difference of opinion about other kinds of naskh, for example, whether Prophetic practice (Sunnah) can abrogate the Quran or vice versa, and whether the consensus of the learned community (ijma) can abrogate a ruling from the Quran or a hadith."
Obviously, this is a very confusing and sometimes contentious issue. Honestly, I'm puzzled by the argument that a consensus of the learned community could abrogate something from the Quran, mainly because is the argument not based on the notion that the opinion of a group of humans, albeit scholarly ones, would replace a revelation. And, to me, this brings us to my biggest problem with abrogations: they are, I would argue, by definition more about human interpretation and bias and less about divine revelation, which probably explains why the abrogations seem to always grow more harsh and/or more restrictive. Again, I think it's easy to cherry pick passages from the Quran to back up your own personal beliefs, and abrogations seem to have such potential to take us further and further away from the heart of the faith. This is why I always say that you need to look at your faith as a whole and not focus on little, sometimes debated, corners of it.
And, as always, I'll throw in my usual disclaimer that I speak for me and me alone, and I do not represent the vast majority of Muslims (I don't know why they're all so routinely wrong . . . 😌).
No comments:
Post a Comment