QURAN AL FAJR: “O those who believe, do not say Raina, but say Unzurna, and listen. And for the unbelievers there is a grievous punishment”. (Verse 104) THE QURAN ILLUSTRATED, 12TH OCTOBER 2013: “Among other perversities, some of the Jews invented a new mischief. When they presented themselves before the Holy Prophet (SAW), they would address him with the word Ra’ina, which, in Arabic, means be mindful of us, but is, in Hebrew, a curse. The latter is what they intended, but the Arabs, not knowing Hebrew, could not see the point, and some Muslims too, with the Arabic sense of the word in mind, began to address the Holy Prophet (SAW) in the same manner to the great glee of the Jews who had thus found a way of insulting him openly, and had even tricked the Muslims into joining them. In order to frustrate the design of the Jews, the Holy Quran commands the Muslims to use the word Unzurna instead of Raina, for the meanings of the two words are the same in Arabic. The verse also announces a dire punishment to the Jews for showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet (SAW) and for trying to be clever with him. The verse describes the insolent Jews as Kafirs (infidels), which means that being intentionally disrespectful towards a prophet even in an indirect manner constitutes infidelity. The verse shows that if a perfectly legitimate action on ones part provides room for others to commit illegitimate actions, even the legitimate action no longer remains lawful for one. For example, if a permissible action on the part of a scholar is likely to lead the ignorant into error and to induce them to do impermissible things, that permissible action will then become forbidden for him, provided that the action concerned is not essential according to the Shariah and is not included among its objects. The Holy Qur’an and the ahadith provide many instances of this nature. For example, before the advent of Islam the Quraysh had, in rebuilding the Kabah, made certain modifications in the design set by Sayyidna Ibrahim (Abraham (AS). A Hadith reports that the Holy Prophet (SAW) wished to demolish the present structure, and to build it again according to the Abrahamic pattern, but he did not do so, for such an action could have led ignorant people into misunderstanding and error. In the vocabulary of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, such injunctions are described as : Sadd al-Dharai : removing the means (to error) and are accepted by all the jurists -- those of the Hanbali school being very particular about them. (Qurtubi) Verse 105 “Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, or idolaters, do not like that any good should come to you from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His grace whom He wills. And Allah is the Lord of great bounty”. (Verse 105) The previous verse told us how the Jews behaved towards the Holy Prophet (SAW); the present verse speaks of their behaviour towards Muslims in general. Some of the Jews used to assure the Muslims of their sincerity towards them, and to pretend that they would very much have liked the Muslims to have received from Allah religious doctrines and commandments superior to what they themselves had received, so that they too could accept them, but unfortunately Islam did not seem to be a better religion. The Holy Qur’an refutes their claim to be the well-wishers of the Muslims, and declares that the infidels, whether they be the Jews or the associators, are so jealous of Muslims that they can never like the idea of their receiving from Allah any kind of blessing whatsoever. Of course, this jealousy can do no harm to the Muslims, for Allah is Beneficent and All-Powerful, and can shower his special blessings on whomsoever He chooses. These Jews used to make two claims -- firstly, that Judaism was a better religion than Islam; secondly, that they were the well-wishers of the Muslims. They could not establish the first of these claims on the basis of any valid argument, and it remained an empty assertion. Moreover, the difference between Islam and Judaism does not primarily depend on the question of one being better than the other. For, when something new comes to abrogate something older, the latter is automatically given up -- and Allah has sent Islam to abrogate all the earlier religions. The fact being so obvious, the Holy Qur’an says nothing in refutation of the first claim, and takes up only the second. The mushrikin (associators) have been mentioned here along with the Jews for the sake of emphasis, and to point out that Jews cannot be the well-wishers of Muslims any more than mushrikin can -- the two being alike in their hatred of Muslims. Verses 106 - 107 “Whenever we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one equal to it. Do you not know that Allah is powerful over everything? Do you not know that to Allah alone belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? And, you have none, other than Allah, to protect or help you”. (Verses 106 - 107) At first, Muslims used to pray with their faces turned towards the Baytul-Maqdis at Jerusalem; later on, Allah commanded them to turn towards the Kabah. Similarly, certain other injunctions were abrogated altogether, or replaced by others. This provided the Jews and some of the associators too with an occasion to taunt the Muslims, and to say that such changes were made by the Holy Prophet (SAW) himself and not by Allah. Their purpose was to sow the seed of doubt in the mind of the Muslims with regard to the Holy Quran being a book revealed by Allah. They used to argue that if everything that Allah revealed was good, as the Muslims affirmed, why should one injunction be replaced by another? For, it would only mean that one of the two injunctions must be good, and the other evil, but no divine revelation can possibly be evil. Putting these two premises together, the Jews tried to draw the conclusion that the Holy Qur’an could not be a revealed book. The present verse refutes this line of argument, and, in effect, points out that abrogation does not mean replacing good with evil, or vice versa, which should imply the possibility of the presence of evil in divine revelation, but that everything that Allah reveals to His prophets is good, and that what has been abrogated is good as much as what abrogated it. The verse declares that if Allah chooses to abrogate an injunction contained in a certain verse, while retaining the verse itself as a part of the Holy Quran, or chooses to remove a verse from the memories of men altogether, there is nothing objectionable in it, for Allah alone knows the wisdom that lies in His choice, and He makes these changes for the good of men. In fact, He always sends another verse or injunction better than, or at least equal to, what He has abrogated. Allah being omnipotent and omniscient, He possesses the authority to change His commandments as He likes, and He also knows what is good for men at a particular time, and makes these changes according to this knowledge. Men have no friend or helper except Allah. As friend, Allah keeps their good in view while laying down injunctions. As helper, He protects those who obey His commandments against the hostility of their foes - but if the obedient are to receive blessings in the other world greater than the harm they have to suffer in this world, the apparent domination of their foes does not really matter. What is Naskh? (Abrogation): Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses, or making men forget certain others. The first phrase of the verse, thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Quran can be abrogated. The Arabic word in the text is Naskh, which has two lexical meanings - - (1) to write, and (2) to abolish, to repeal. According to the consensus of all the commentators, the word has been employed in this verse in the second sense -- that is, the repeal or abrogation of an injunction. So, in the terminology of the Holy Qur’ān and the Hadith Naskh signifies the promulgation of an injunction in place of another --whether the later injunction merely consists in the repeal of the earlier or, substitutes a new regulation in its place. The other form of Naskh mentioned in this verse is that sometimes Allah made the Holy Prophet (SAW) and the blessed Companions forget a certain verse altogether. The commentators have cited several instances of this kind of Naskh, and the purpose in such cases has usually been to repeal a certain regulation. The kinds of abrogation Making laws and repealing them to promulgate new ones in their stead is a regular and well-known practice in human governments and institutions. But in the case of man-made laws abrogation takes place sometimes because the law-makers do not understand the situation properly while making a certain law, and have to change it when they realize their mistakes, and sometimes because when a law is promulgated, it is in accord with the prevailing situation, but when quite unforeseen changes alter the situation, the law too has to be changed. But these two forms of abrogation are out of the question in the case of divine injunctions. There is, however, a third form too. The lawmaker makes a law, knowing fully well that the circumstances are going to change in such a way that the law will no longer be suitable for the new situation; so, when the situation changes as he already knew, he changes the law too, and promulgates a new one which he had thought of at the very start. For example, a physician prescribes a medicine for a patient in view of his present conditions, but he knows that when the patient has been using it for two days, his condition will change and require a new medicine -- with this realization, he prescribes a medicine suitable for that day, but two days later, when circumstances have changed, he prescribes a new one. The physician can easily give the patient written instructions for the whole course of the treatment, with all the changes in the medicines-duly indicated. But this would be putting too much burden on the already feeble patient, and there would also be the danger of some harm through a possible error or misunderstanding. This is the only form of abrogation which can occur, and has been occurring in divine injunctions and in divine books. Every new Shariah and every new revealed Book has been abrogating many injunctions of the earlier Shariah and of the earlier Book. Similarly, within the same Shariah, too, it has always happened that a certain law was in force for a time, but Divine Wisdom chose to abrogate it and to promulgate another in its place. A Hadith reported by Muslim says: There has never been a Prophethood which did not abrogate some injunctions. This is a principle which it should not be difficult to understand. It was only some malicious and ignorant Jews who confused the divine abrogation of injunctions with the two forms of the repeal of man-made laws, and began, in their impudence, to taunt the Holy Prophet (SAW) - in reply to which, as we have said, these two verses were revealed. (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, etc) As for the Muslims, it was probably in their desire to avoid giving occasion to the enemies of Islam for such taunts that some from among theMutazilah tried to explain away the whole question of Naskh. Logically speaking, there is a possibility -- so ran their argument -- of abrogation in the case of divine injunctions, and the possibility cannot be denied on any rational ground, but abrogation has not actually occurred in the Holy Quran, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which abrogates another (Naskh) and no verse which has been abrogated (Mansukh). This view is attributed to Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, but the Ulama in general have always rejected this opinion, and refuted the argument. Thus, we read in Ruh al-Maani:The people belonging to all the Shariahs are unanimous in accepting the validity of abrogation and its actual occurrence both. Only the Jews -- with the exception of their Isawiyyah sect have denied the possibility of abrogation, and Abu Muslim al-Isfahani; has denied its occurrence, for he says that it is rationally possible, but has not actually taken place. Imam al-Qurtubi says:It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed. In this connection, al Qurtubi has related a very illuminating incident. The fourth Khalifah Sayyidna AIi (RA) saw a man preaching in the mosque. He asked the people what the man was doing. On being told that he was preaching, the blessed Khalifah said: He is not doing anything of the sort, but only announcing to the people that he is such and such a man and the son of such and such, and asking them to recognize and remember him. Calling the man to his side, he asked: Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones? When he confessed that he did not, the Khalifah turned him out of the mosque, and ordered him never to preach there. It is not feasible to cite here all the sayings of the blessed Companions and their immediate Successors (Tabiin) which affirm the actual occurrence of abrogation in the case of injunctions laid down by the Holy Quran and the Hadith. Some of these have been quoted, along with the evidence for the authenticity of the reports, in the commentaries of Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir etc. and in Al-Durr al-Manthur. As for the reports less strongly authenticated, they are just innumerable. That is why there has always been a total consensus of the Ulama on the question of Naskh, except for Abu Muslim al-1sfahiini and a few others from among the Mutazilah who have denied the actual occurrence of abrogation -- but Imam Razi has in his commentary, exposed in detail the hollowness of their opinion”.(Source Maarif al Quran ,vol.1,pp-180-187)
Posted on: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 02:18:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015