|
. Are some Quranic words abrogated? "A.L.R. This is a book whose verses have been perfected" 11:1 These Quranic words state clearly that God's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated, yet sadly these Muslim scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses. They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses: FIRST VERSE 2:106 "Whichever Ayah We "nansakh" or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106 What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret ‘Ayah’ in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran. And they interpret the word "nansakh" as to mean to abrogate. But does that word as used in the Quran truly mean abrogate? Here we have to examine the correct meanings of both words: "nansakh" and "ayat" as used by God in 2:106 First: The word "ayat" The word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings: a- It could mean a miracle from God as in: "And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayahs (miracles)." 17:101 b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in: "And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people."25:37 c- The word ‘Ayah’ can also mean a sign as in: "He said, ‘My Lord, give me an Ayah (sign).’ He said, ‘Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10 d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in: "This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its Ayat (verses)." 38:29 Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, it can easily be verified that the word ‘Ayah’ in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons: 1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten. 2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word ‘Ayah’ in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it! 3- If the word ‘Ayah’ in verse 106 meant a miracle, an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten"can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran. Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse : "And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah’s (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : ‘I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe’. When he brought them our Ayah’s they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48 Second: The word "nansakh" The word "nansakh" which is used in 2:106 comes from the verb "nasakha". It has been claimed that this word in 2:106 means abrogate. However, on closer inspection of all the Quranic verses which use this word it can be found that this word means quite the opposite. It means to record or write down. When God wants to say "substitute" the Arabic word used is "BADDALA" an example is found in 16:101 For full details please check the following page: http://www.quran-islam.org/252.html SECOND VERSE 16:101 "When We "baddalna" (substitute) one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know" The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things: a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another. This first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse: "Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48 Here, the words "superseding them."confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran. b- The substitution of one law within one Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture This second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran. As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously. We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran. This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another. The
evidence to
that is given
within the
same verse
(16:101): "........they say, 'You made this up" Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him "You have made it up"................it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran............ What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! Once it is established that this verse speaks of reaction and words of the disbelievers, then the next question is would be .... are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book............. they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another! However, if they fear that their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up"himself. These glorious words "You have made it up"indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between one scripture and another. As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48 As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64). It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101. Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the ‘hadith’. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many ‘hadith’ contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples: P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number. 1- "I am the
most
honourable
messenger"
(Bukhary
97/36). 2- "The
Prophet
never
urinated in
standing
position"
(Hanbel
6/136,192,213). This
contradicts: P.S. May we wonder, has God sent His messenger and prophet Muhammad in order to guide us into the appropriate position for urinating? !!! 3- "The
prophet
said, ‘The
sun was
eclipsed the
day Ibrahim
(the
prophet’s
son)
died’…(Bukhary 7/page
118) 4- "If two
Muslims
fight each
other with
their
swords, the
killer and the
killed will go
to hell"
(Bukhari
1/page 13,
Muslim
18/page 10). 5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the ‘Hereafter’ in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet’s wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10) 6- "The
prophet
said, ‘Take
your religion
from the
words of
Aesha (the
prophet’s
wife)" These were some of the numerous contradictions in hadith, now we read in the Quran the following words: "Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82 This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy in particular is God’s own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82, what is not from God must contain contradictions. To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses. The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God !!! Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail; THE QURAN CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS! For more details on the issue of Abrogation, please go to: . back to 'MISINTERPRETATIONS' main page . |
 |