Mostly I see this on anti-Islamic sites, but they do seem to reference genuine Muslim scholars.  The only Islamic sources I have seen condemn abrogation as unnecessary and unworthy of the Quran, which is perfect and contains no contradictions; but these are usually "Quran-only" web sites so I'm not sure if they are representative.

 

Is abrogation a mainstream Islamic teaching, or a discredited heresy, or what?

I have heard from many sources, one of them is not Muslim, who say that what is revealed in the later sura's in the Qur'an supersede the earlier surahs. When I heard this I was extremely skeptical, however I thought I would ask you sidi just to confirm this...

Among the verses in the Quran containing orders or laws there are verses that abrogate verses previously revealed and acted upon. These abrogating verse are called _nasikh_ and those whose validity they terminate are called _mansukh_.

The common notion of abrogation, that is, canceling of one law or code by another, is based on the idea that a new law is needed because of a mistake or shortcoming in the previous one. It is clearly inappropriate to ascribe a mistake in law-making to God, Who is perfect, and whose creation admit of no flaws.

However, in the Quran, the abrogating verses mark the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In time the new law appears and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such laws.

It is in this light that we should regard the wisdom of abrogation within the Quran:

"And when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation and Allah knows best what He reveals -- they say: you are just inventing it. Most of them do not know. Say: The Holy Spirit (Gibril) has revealed it from your hand with truth and as a guidance and good news for those who have surrendered (to God)" [16:101-102]

It is a science on its own in Islam to know the Nasikh and Mansukh.

Hajj Gibril

  Please remember there is no Nasikh or mansookh in the Quran. There is no verse abrogated or abrogating verse. If there is any then it may please (both) be presented here on the forum.

 

 

 

 

 

In the usual classification of Muslim sciences, the usul al-fiqh isgenerally defined as the science of the proofs which lead to the establishment of legal standard.(1)

The usul had been the subject of study by jurists as attested by the fact that Abu Yusuf discusses certain aspects of it in his Kitab al-Kharaj(2) and Shaybani is reported to have written a book on the usul.(3) But this term had not yet acquired the technical meaning of a science dealing specifically with the sources of Islamic law. The Risalah,(4) a unique work in the literature of Islamic law, gave Shafi�i a name as the founder of the science of usul al-fiqh. Shafi�i was followed in his monumental work on the principles of jurisprudence by a Hanafi jurist, al-Karkhi, the teacher of al-Jassas. Although his treatment was very sketchy, it was a fruitful start in the field concerned.(5) Al-Karkhi was followed by Abu Bakr al-Jassas who wrote a comprehensive book about usul al-fiqh in which he explained the views of his teacher al-Karkhi.(6) The Usul al-Jassas, as a matter of fact, is the first systematic attempt ever made to describe the principles of Muslim jurisprudence. The late Hanafi works on the usul and particularly on al-Nasikh wa�l Mansukh give us clues that most of the ideas were borrowed from the Usul al-Jassas.(7) Mustafa Zaid,(8) an Egyptian Writer on the subject of al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh, states that definition of naskh by Jassas was followed for five centuries. Jassas included in his Usul the views who do and do not believe in the theory of Naskh. The views of his fellow Hanafites like 'Isa b. Aban are also explained. Further, he presented Karkhi's views and remarked that Karkhi's opinions were clearer than those of 'Isa b. Aban's.(9) Records show that Jassas was an exponent of the Hanafi school and its acknowledged Usuli. The production of the Usul al-Jassas was intended to verify the fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifah. Jassas endeavoured to document the Hanafi views in the light of verses of the Qur'an and the ahadith of the Prophet (P.B.H.).

Abu Hanifah may here be mentioned as the founder of the system. He acquired much of his knowledge from Hammad b. Abi Sulaymain who is regarded as the pioneer of the Hanafi school. The fiqh of the Iraqi school was supported and established by the great pupils of Imam Abu Hanifah i.e., Abu Yusuf and Shaybani. At the request of caliph Harun al-Rasyid, the former compiled his Kitab al-Kharaj which, however, covers much wider ground than is indicated by its title. However, little is learnt about naskh from the book. Abu Yusuf maintains that the Sunnah can override the Qur'an. The abrogation of the Qur'anic injunction of ablution (al-Qur'an, V:6) by the wiping of the shoes is a case in point.(10) Shaybani, like his companion Abu Yusuf, did not discuss the principles of abrogation in detail although some instances of naskh are discussed in his works. Shaybani reported that the Prophet (P.B.H.) launched a campaign against. Al-Ta'if at the beginning of the sacred month of Muharram and continued it for forty days until he captured the city in the month of Safar. Shaybani then produced a report on the authority of Mujahid in which he had declared that the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months was abrogated. According to Mujahid, the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months as laid down in the Qur'an (11:217) was abrogated by God in another verse: "slay the Pagans wherever you may find them" (al-Qur�an, IX:5). When Shaybani that fighting during the sacred months, according to Kalbi, was not abrogated, he remarked that Kalbi's opinion was not to be followed.(11) This sort of report tells us that there was no agreed theory of naskh. It also informs us that there seems to be no agreement among the jurists on the incidence of naskh. The earlier works on fiqh and hadith show that the word naskh was not used frequently. In the Muwatta� of Imam Malik the word naskh is mentioned only once. It is held that the Qur'anic injunction which prescribed the precise shares of the listed relatives of a deceased person (al-Qur�an, IV:11-12) abrogated the Qur'anic injunction concerning wasiyyah (al-Qur�an, 11:180). Imam Malik also indicated that the Qur'an could abrogate the Sunnah, but in this case he used the word taraka. He agreed with his teacher Zuhri on the point that the later command abrogated the earlier.(12)

The works on al-Nasikh wa'l-Mansukh reveal that there was no single reported instance in which the Prophet (P.B.H.) said explicitly that a certain ruling was abrogated. Hamadhani, however, records two versions in which the name of the Prophet (P.B.H.) was involved. 'Urwah b. Zubayr said: "I testify that ray father told me that the Prophet (P.B.H.) would make a statement and after a while, he would abrogate it by means of another statement just as the Qur�an abrogates other parts of the Qur�an". Ibn Baylmani reported on the authority of his father that ibn 'Umar heard from the Prophet (P.B.H.) who had said: "Some parts of my ahadith abrogate other parts of my ahadith". Hamadhani, after recording this hadith, argued that no one except ibn Baylmani had narrated this ahadith. Further, ibn Baylmani was not a reliable person and his hadith must not be accepted.(13)

Shafi�i, according to Hamadhani, was the first scholar who systematised the principles of naskh.(14) This reveals that principles of naskh were in operation. Before we present the Hanafi's views on abrogation and the arguments against and for the theory concerned presented by Jassas and documented by Sarakhsi, it would be extremely useful to see how Jassas settles the meaning of naskh.

The scholars disagreed concerning the meaning of naskh. Some said: "it refers to naql (transfer). They say: nasakha al-Kitab (He copied the book i.e., he transferred what was in, the original copy to another copy). Others said: it refers to ibtal (nullification). They say: nasakhat al-shams al-zill, (the sun removed the shade). Some of them said: naskh is zalah. They refer to nasakhat al-rih al-athar (The wind obliterated the traces). These words are close in meaning, and whatever naskh may mean in the language, when it is used for the abrogation of the ruling, it is used metaphorically." Jassas rejects all the possible meaning of naskh, derived from secular usage whether it refers to naql, ibtal or iza1ah.(15)

Jassas restricts discussion of the word naskh to the Shari�ah usage and remarks: "Naskh is the declaration of the time of the particular ruling which we thought would remain for ever, but the second ruling made it clear that the time of the ruling was for a certain period and it was now no longer valid."(16)

This meaning of naskh had not been defined by any of Jassas' predecessors, therefore, he was the first person to declare that naskh in the Shari�ah is the bayan of the duration of the ruling. This definition of naskh was adopted by Jassas in order to refute the views of those Muslim scholars who held that naskh, never occurred in the Shari�ah. It was also to refute those Jews who had declared that Moses had informed them that the Shari�ah of the Torah and working on the day of the Sabbath would never be abrogated. Thirdly, it was to refute the views of Shafi�i who had maintained that only the Qur'an superseded the Qur'an; only the Sunnah superseded the Sunnah. He claimed that they did not and could not supersede each other. The function of the Sunnah, he believes, is to follow what is laid down in the Qur'an. In support of his view he listed some Qur�anic verses which according to him clearly spoke about the abrogation of the Qur'an alone.(17) He refers the Qur'anic verses X:15 and II:106. His opponents interpreted the same verses to indicate that the Qur�an could be abrogated by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur'an. According to Jassas, the Qur�an (11:106) indicated that naskh occurred in the Qur'an. It did not indicate that the Qur'anic verse would be abrogated by a better or similar Qur'anic verse, since nothing prevented as from understanding from the verse that abrogation might be achieved by the Sunnah which was revealed to the Prophet (P.B.H.), and this, he argued, was the precise meaning of the verses: "we bring better or like thereof("18.) God meant to state that He would make a ruling superior to the first in the sense of its being easier to perform, or richer in terms of reward.(19)

Concerning those, Muslim scholars who did not believe in the theory of naskh, Jassas stated: "Some of the modern scholars have asserted that there was no naskh in the Shari�ah of our Prophet (P.B.H.). The occurrence of naskh was merely an indication that laws of the previous prophets (A.S.) were abrogated like the Sabbath and facing towards the East or the West while praying. They had argued that our Prophet (P.B.H.) was the last of the prophets (A S.) and his Shari�ah was confirmed and everlasting until the day of judgement. The man (Abu Muslim al-Isfahani) who had held this view was endowed with knowledge of rhetoric and Arabic language, but he had no knowledge of jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence. Although it could not be doubted that he was perfect in faith, he deviated greatly from the right path by declaring this dogma, since no one had reported this before him. Our predecessors and their successors understood from the religion of God, that numerous rulings were abrogated from it; and they have narrated these reports in a way which could not be questioned. There are general, specific, confirmed and obscure passages in the Qur'an. The one who rejected the occurrence of naskh, rejected all its general, specific, confirmed and obscure commands because these categories all arrived in the same manner. This man had derived from the abrogated and abrogating verses, judgements which were excluded from the interpretations of our early scholars I (Jassas) could not understand from where he had obtained his information. However, I maintain that he had used his own judgement leaving aside the reports of the salaf. The Prophet (P.B.H.) had said: 'whoever interpreted the Qur'an by using his personal opinion, certainly committed a sin'."

Jassas' opponents quoted several passages from the Qur�an in order to show that abrogation or withdrawal of the verses was impossible; God said: 'We have without doubt, sent down the Message (Qur�an) and We will surely guard it (from corruption) (al-Qur�an, XV:9). God also said: "It is for us to collect it (the Qur�an) and to promulgate it: But when We have promulgated it, follow then its recital (as promulgated). Nay, more it is for Us to explain it (and make it clear)" (al-Qur'an, LXXV:17-19). The explicit meaning of the verses require that God would guard the Qur�an for ever and its implication is for the whole ummah because He did not specify the time or generation. God said: "...it (the Qur'an), is no less a Message for all creatures". (al-Qur'an, XII:104). God in this verse informed us that the whole Qur'an is a Message (or Reminder) and it confirms that there would be no abrogation of the wording, because what is abrogated or forgotten and did not reach us, would not be considered as a Message for the people.

Jassas explains away these verses by simply saying that they refer to something else. The verses do not prevent the possibility of the ruling being abrogated. In a similar vein, the verses do not prevent the possibility of the wording being abrogated, said Jasas.

The view that these verses do not prevent us from talking about the abrogation of the wording or ruling might mean that Jassas was dealing with the two phenomena of the naskh:

1. Naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm and
2. Naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah.

The first is adopted by Jassas in order to establish the ruling of kaffarat al-yamin which is imposed upon a believer who fails to fulfil his deliberate oath. The Hanafis argued that three days should be consecutive, because the wording mutatabi�at had existed in 'Abd Allah b. Mas�ud's reading.(20) Jassas and Sarakhsi claim that the wording was withdrawn while the ruling remained valid.(21) Tabari was also of the view that the keeper of the fast who has to expiate for the breaking of an oath should fast for three continuous days. There is no disagreement among the scholars that this will suffice; others disagree as to whether fasting on non-consecutive days will suffice as expiation.(22)

Shifi�i�s predecessors, both Hanafis and Malikis, allowed the abrogation of the Sunnah by the Qur'an and vice verse. For Shafi'i who had interpreted the verse No. 106 of the Surah al-Baqarah (No. II) in the light of the verse No. 10 of the Surah Nahl (No. XVI), it was very difficult to adopt the procedure. Shafi'i succeeded in his attempts and secured the place of the Sunnah as a source of law and the danger which had threatened it was no longer felt. Even the followers of Shafi�i, let alone the Hanafis and Malikis, felt free to, revert to pre-Shafi'i thinking. Jassas, a Hanafi exponent, had no difficulty, therefore, in arguing that the Sunnah could be abrogated by the Qur�an and the Qur'an could be abrogated by the Sunnah. However, they could not be abrogated by khabr al-wahid. Further, khabr al-wahid as an addition to the Qur'an cannot be accepted.(23)

The naskh implied that the later command abrogated the earlier. Sarakhsi says: "The contradiction between the sources is impossible, since this would mean Divine fallibility; in actuality the contradiction is created by our human inability to estimate correctly the date of the texts. Once this has been done, however, the later abrogates the earlier."(24)

Among other principles of the naskh, one ofthem is very important. Once the date has been established, the nasikh verse or hadith became easy to be traced. Reports from the Companions and Successors are also decisive in the process of distinguishing the nasikh from the mansukh. This indicates that the naskh as a principle was alleged to have been accepted during the lifetime of the Companions. Jassas' final criterion for determining the nasikh from the mansukh isthat of ijma'. However, ijma' itself cannot abrogate the ruling of the Qur�an and the Sunnah.

The principles of naskh were justified by referring to the wording of the Qur'anic verses II:106 and XVI:101. The verses were shown to provide sufficient grounds for the occurrence of the naskh. The two modes: naskh al-hukm duna al-tilawah and naskh al-tilawah duna al-hukm were forwarded by the jurists as they were directly related to the fiqh. The naskh was alleged to have worked within and between the sources, as they could not solve the seeming contradiction, though being informed of the dictum: "al-jama' yamna' al-naskh" (reconciliation rules out naskh).(25)

1. Encydopaedia of Islam (4 vols.), London, 1924, vol. 4, P. 1655.
2. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, Cairo, 1352/1933. According to Khatib Baghdadi, Abu Yusuf was the first person to compose a book on Usul Talrikh Baghdad (14 vols.), Beirut, n.d., vol. 4, p. 246. According to Schacht, "The statement of Khatib Baghdadi, that Abu Yusuf was the first to compose books on the theory Of law on the basis of the doctrine of Abu Hanifah, is not confirmed by the old sources". "The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence", Oxford, 1929, p. 133.
3. Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist (2 vols.), London, 1970, vol. 1, p. 506.
4. Shafi�i, al-Risalah, Cairo, 1358/1939.
5. Saidullah Qazi, Principles of Muslim Jurisprudence, Lahore, 1981, p.2; al-Karakhi's Usul is published as a supplement to al-Dabusi's Tasts al-Nazar, Cairo, n.d., quoted by Shehaby, N., "'illah and Qiyas in early Islamic legal theory", J.A.O.S./, 1982, p. 27.
6. Khudari, Usul al-fiqh, Beirut, 1969, p. 10.
7. Sarakhsi, Usul (2 vol.), Haiderabad, 1372/1952, vol. 2, pp. 53-8.
8. Zaid, M., al-Naskh fi�l Qur�an al-Karim (2 vols.), Cairo, 1383/1963, vol. 1, p. 82.
9. Usul al-Jassas (Manuscript Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Cairo), fol. 139b.
10. Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Athar, Haiderabad, 1355/1936, p. 14; Jassas, Ahkam, vol. 2, p. 425.
11. Shaybani, Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir, ed., M. Khadduri, Maryland, 1966, p. 94.
12. A. Rippen, Naskh al-Quran and the problem of early Tafsir Texts, Bulletin, S.O.A.S. Nov. 1984, p. 25; Malik, Muwa'tta�, vol. 1, p. 299, vol. 2, p. 765.
13. Hamadhani, Al-I�tibar Matba'al-Andulus, Hims, 1386/1986, p. 50.
14. Ibid.
15. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 115a..
16. Ibid.
17. Al-Risalah, p. 106.
18. Usu1 al-Jassas, fol. 152a.
19. Ghazzali, Mustafa (2 vols.), Bulaq, 1322/1904, vol. 2, p. 125. Also see Tabari's Tafsir on al-Qur'an, II:106.
20. Usul al-Jassas, fol. 127b.
21. Usul, vol. 2, p. 81.
22. Tafsir, vol. 7, p. 30.
23. Usul al-Jassas, fol.143a.
24. Usul, vol. 2, p. 12.
25. I�tibar, p. 6.

 

Rami:

 

Are you suggesting to Ron, that indeed certain verses have been abrogated? The Nasih, Mansukh etc can be applied to ahadith or even other matters of fiqh . . . But not the Qur'an.

 

For e.g Mutah . . . it was practiced by certain ppl during Prophet Muhammad's time, and until Allah revealed anything about it - he remained silent. But later, Mutah was abolished i.e. abrogated. This cannot be said about Quranic verses.

 

Like Minuteman correctly gives the e.g of Alcohol . . . all 3 verses are still just as valid, and do not at all contradict. In one place, Allah asks us to stay away from Alcohol - that is the preferred scenario. But does that mean no muslim will ever get drunk? No . . . which is why, the other verse still applies i.e. even if you are drunk, atleast do not approach prayer. No abrogation here. . . just 2 verses about Alcohol, essentially saying the same thing . . . but in different scenarios.

 

What you have said about the Quran bieng revealed in parts is correct, that was to allow ppl to make an easy, gradual transition . . . but strictly speaking in terms of the Quran, one cannot say that verses abrogate each other. (abrogate = annulment, abolition, cancellation)

 

PS: Since one is explaining to a non-muslim, I dont think going into detailed explanations like 'Hanafi Madhab' etc helps much. Its like, explaining astro-physics to a Marketing student. An exaggerated analogy, I agree. . . but u get my point. I think what Non-Muslims want to know through this question is whether or not they can deduce that the Quran has loopholes etc. Also, I appreciate the article you posted, but it can be tedious at times to go thru a lengthy document, esp when one is short of time, yet still wishes to know the crux. It would be nice if you could in a para or two just give the crux of the article . However, its very helpful to have the original doc/link there, for authencity/references sake . . . so do post a link. Jazakallah.

PS: Since one is explaining to a non-muslim, I dont think going into detailed explanations like 'Hanafi Madhab' etc helps much. Its like, explaining astro-physics to a Marketing student. An exaggerated analogy, I agree. . . but u get my point. I think what Non-Muslims want to know through this question is whether or not they can deduce that the Quran has loopholes etc. Also, I appreciate the article you posted, but it can be tedious at times to go thru a lengthy document, esp when one is short of time, yet still wishes to know the crux. It would be nice if you could in a para or two just give the crux of the article . However, its very helpful to have the original doc/link there, for authencity/references sake . . . so do post a link. Jazakallah.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the matter usually people just scream and shout at you here

I agree the article is in depth but i dont doubt ron's intellectual capacity to understand most of it, i wouldn't have posted this had i thought he wasn't an educated person. Also i think there is far to much dumbing down of Islam to the point where the dumbed down version people are now claiming is the norm and no one is being exposed to its real depth, so even if people don't understand this they should at least see that Islamic scholarship has real depth and isn't as simplistic as 'this hadith said this' ergo Islam says what the hadith says and everyone is capable of deducing fatwah from the quran and sunnah.

You also could have waited untill you had time to read it


-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

 Please indicate one or two verses of the Quran which are now abrogated, which stand abrogated. Then this matter will be discussed in some detail. Until then nobody will believe the abrogation story.  The Madhahib may have discussed the subject of abrogation  and I have myself read one book (long ago) on this subject by Ibne Hazm r.a.

 

 

 

 

 

Verse 184 says that in expiation of missing a fast, a who can afford it, should feed a person in need, for every fast missed/or should make up a replacement fast. The verse mentions both the sick, and those on a journey.

 

Later in verse 185 :

 

 

 

Despite talking about feeding the needy, Allah still says in Verse 184, that 'if ye fast is better for you if ye did but know' . . . it sets the grounds for the next verse, verse 185 that says 'let him fast the month'. Just because Allah did not repeat something He already mentioned in the previous verse (i.e. feeding the needy) does not mean that part got abrogated. And still applies to those who cannot fast at all.

 

 

Which means Allah wishes us to fast - yet does not desire difficulty on us.

 

Hence, as long as it is not a difficulty (i.e. person is not sick) , he should complete the number - rather than going for the first option of feeding the needy. But is the person has a difficulty, that Allah does not desire,  and cannot make up fasts - he should feed the poor.

 

What is abrogative about it?

The previous verse??  I totally agree, it makes no sense whatsoever for Allah to reveal a verse and then change His mind, literally in the next breath! (assuming Allah breathes )

 

I await other examples with interest...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you seem to be saying that Muhammad recited Sura 2, and then come back the next day or the next month and say, "Oh excuse me, I left out a verse between 183 and 185"?  That is almost as hard to imagine as abrogation. Why did the Quran need so much editing?

 

 

 

 

The order of the Surahs is divinely inspired, True, it is not in the exact same chronological order it was revealed in, but the current arrangement is still according to how Prophet said it should be.

 

As to why the order of the Surahs was changed, there was surely wisdom behind it, and arguing as to why it is the way it is, really doesnt matter. Thats because the words, verses and the message is still the same, in the exact way it was revealed.

 

Also, some surahs were revealed in one sitting . . . while other, lengthier ones, with details and commandments that required a gradual transition (such as Surah Baqarah) were revealed over a span of time, not in one sitting. As for the verses, I dont think (anybody with more info on this, pl elaborate) anybody changed the sequence of the verses. Just the surahs. . . but of this I'm not entirely sure, bcz I couldnt find any source commenting on the sequence of verses.

 

 

 

Why did the Quran need so much editing?

-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

 

I never insisted that this issue never existed . . . apparently, it very obviousley does . . . which is why the Sahabah discussed it, or Ron brought it up.

 

If I have realised something, it is that our 'ikhtilaf' may very well perhaps be on how we interpret the 'abrogation' in reference to teh Quran. Infact, one also has to take into consideration how non-muslims view the issue of abrogation. To you or to me, it does not mean that the Quran is nauzubillah imperfect, but when a nonmuslim asks (and I'm not pointing at Ron here, just bieng general) , thier misconception is that this implies that the Quran has loopholes, and due to the abrogation phenomenon, many verses can be ignored or considered nullified. (and no, I would never customize Islam to make it 'pleasing' to a nonmuslim, or to myself)

 

If by abrogation, you or whoever says means 'cancellation' or 'nullify' then I disagree . . . because I agree with the view that the verses still stand today, and apply - just in a different scenario. For e.g. when Allah asks the muslims not to approach prayer when drunk , to me, if we make a venn diagram of the verses, this part still applies today i.e. Do not approach prayers when drunk - its still included in the 'set' of 'drinking is haraam'. It cannot be said that the verse implies its okay to drink, it doesnt. ( I know this verse was revealed before the others)

 

 

I also didn't realize this was going to be a contentious question.  Abrogation is certainly used by anti-Muslims as the basis for all sorts of attacks against Islam, but I thought there would be a straightforward answer here.  I hope my question does not create hostility.

 
I dont argue the individual but the point and any emotion you may perceive is entirely directed at that not the individual. The anti muslim arguments are typically hypocritical in nature since they can easily be turned against the bible and its abrogation of the Torah [eg the day of sabath] or similarly the torah against the book revealed to Abraham [pbuh] and we can go back in time to all past revelations which abrogate what came before them.

It would help me to understand if those who believe in abrogation would provide some specific examples.  What verses have been abrogated, and which "better" verses replace them?

if you want to get into particulars this i can not help you with since i am not qualified in the science of abrogation and any opinion you see should be understood as the opinion of the individuals posting them which they are free to do.

Check this site out and click on Quran,

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

 

You agreed that there is 'ikhtilaf' amongst scholars as to the nature of quranic abrogations, which means basically they have an ikhtilaf with any school of thought that talks about abrogations. Pray tell, how is agreeing with the opposite side regarding this 'ikhtilaf' overstepping boundaries? I did not make-up the hadith of Ibn Abbas, nor did I come up with the 'interpretation' of the verse in surah baqarah (regarding abrogation).

 

As for the schools of thought, ahadith of the Sahabah or the Prophet regarding the issue of abrogation would be considered more reliable compared to any later discussion of the issue. Which is why I tried to go to the source, i.e. ahadith. If you have any regarding this, kindly do post and enlighten us on the issue - if you wish to (meaning I dont 'expect' you to do so, just because I ask, because like you rightly mentioned earlier, I should be reading up in my own good time)

 

 

Question:

Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation, i.e. they believe that certain earlier verses of the Qur�an were abrogated by verses revealed later. Does this imply that God made a mistake and later on corrected it?

Answer:

1.    Two different interpretations

The Glorious Qur�an says in the following verse:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"
[Al-Qur�an 2:106]

A reference to this is also made in chapter 16 verse 101 of Surah Nahl. The Arabic word mentioned is ayat which means �signs� or �verses� and which can also mean �revelations�. This verse of the Qur�an can be interpreted in two different ways:

a.    The revelations that are abrogated are those revelations that were revealed before the Qur�an, for example the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel.

Here Allah (swt) says that He does not cause the previous revelations to be forgotten but He substitutes them with something better or similar, indicating that the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injeel were substituted by the Qur�an.

b.  If we consider that the Arabic word ayat in the above verse refers to the verses of the Qur�an, and not previous revelations, then it indicates that none of the verses of the Qur�an are abrogated by Allah but substituted with something better or similar. This means that certain verses of the Qur�an, that were revealed earlier were substituted by verses that were revealed later. I agree with both the interpretations.

Many Muslims and non-Muslims misunderstand the second interpretation to mean that some of the earlier verses of the Qur�an were abrogated and no longer hold true for us today, as they have been replaced by the later verses of the Qur�an or the abrogating verses. This group of people even wrongly believe that these verses contradict each other.

Let us analyze a few such examples.

2.    Produce a recital like the Qur�an / 10 Surahs / 1 Surah:

Some pagan Arabs alleged that the Qur�an was forged by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Allah (swt) challenges these Arabs in the following verse of Surah Al-Isra:

"Say: If the whole of Mankind and Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur�an they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support."
[Al-Qur�an 17:88]

Later the challenge was made easy in the following verse of Surah Al-Hud:

"Or they may say, "He forged it." Say, "Bring ye then ten Surahs forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsover ye can, other than Allah, if ye speak the truth!�."
[Al-Qur�an 11:13]

It was made easier in the following verse of Surah Yunus:

"Or do they say, "He forged it"? Say: "Bring then a Surah like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can, besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!�."
[Al-Qur�an 10:38]

Finally in Surah Al-Baqarah, Allah (swt) further simplified the challenge:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah if your (doubts) are true.

But if ye cannot � and of a surety ye cannot � then fear the Fire whose fuel is Men and Stones � which is prepared for those who reject faith".
[Al-Qur�an 2:23-24]

Thus Allah (swt) made the challenges progressively easier. The progressively revealed verses of the Qur�an first challenged the pagans to produce a book like the Qur�an, then challenged them to produce ten Surahs (chapters) like those in the Qur�an, then one Surah and finally it challenges them to produce one Surah somewhat similar (mim mislihi) to the Qur�anic Surahs. This does not mean that the later verses that were revealed i.e. of Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verses 23 and 24 contradict the earlier three verses. Contradiction implies mentioning two things that cannot be possible simultaneously, or cannot take place simultaneously.

The earlier verses of the Qur�an i.e. the abrogated verses are still the word of God and the information contained in it is true to this day. For instance the challenge to produce a recital like the Qur�an stands to this day. Similarly the challenge to produce ten Surahs and one Surah exactly like the Qur�an also holds true and the last challenge of producing one surah somewhat similar to the Qur�an also holds true. It does not contradict the earlier challenges, but this is the easiest of all the challenges posed by the Qur�an. If the last challenge cannot be fulfilled, the question of anyone fulfilling the other three more difficult challenges does not arise.

Suppose I speak about a person that he is so dumb, that he would not be able to pass the 10th standard in school. Later I say that he would not be able to pass the 5th standard, and further say that he would not be able to pass even the 1st standard. Finally I say that he is so dull that he would not even be able to pass K.G. i.e. kindergarten. One has to pass kindergarten before one can be admitted to school. What I am stating is that the person is so dull as to be unable to pass even kindergarten. My four statements do not contradict each other, but my last statement i.e. the person would not be able to pass the kindergarten is sufficient to indicate the intelligence of that person. If a person cannot even pass kindergarten, the question of him passing the first standard or 5th or 10th, does not arise.

3.    Gradual prohibition of intoxicants

Another example of such verses is that related to gradual prohibition of intoxicants. The first revelation of the Qur�an to deal with intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Baqarah:

"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling say: �In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit�."
[Al-Qur�an 2:219]

The next verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants is the following verse from Surah Nisa:

"O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say" [Al-Qur�an 4:43]

The last verse to be revealed regarding intoxicants was the following verse from Surah Al-Maidah:

"O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan�s handiwork; eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."
[Al-Qur�an 5:90]

The Qur�an was revealed over a period of 22� years. Many reforms that were brought about in the society were gradual. This was to facilitate the adoption of new laws by the people. An abrupt change in society always leads to rebellion and anarchy.

The prohibition of intoxicants was revealed in three stages. The first revelation only mentioned that in the intoxicants there is great sin and some profit but the sin is greater than the profit. The next revelation prohibited praying in an intoxicated state, indicating that one should not consume intoxicants during the day, since a Muslim has to pray five times a day. This verse does state that when one is not praying at night one is allowed to consume intoxicants. It means one may have or one may not have. The Qur�an does not comment on it. If this verse had mentioned that one is allowed to have intoxicants while not praying then there would have been a contradiction. Allah (swt) chose words appropriately. Finally the total prohibition of intoxicants at all times was revealed in Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 90.

This clearly indicates that the three verses do not contradict each other. Had they been contradicting, it would not have been possible to follow all the three verses simultaneously. Since a Muslim is expected to follow each and every verse of the Qur�an, only by following the last verse i.e. of Surah Maidah (5:90), he simultaneously agrees and follows the previous two verses.

Suppose I say that I do not live in Los Angeles. Later I say that I do not live in California. Finally I say, I do not live in the United States of America. This does not imply that these three statements contradict each other. Each statement gives more information than the previous statement. The third statement includes the information contained in the first two statements. Thus, only by saying that I do not live in the United States of America, it is obvious, that I also do not live in California nor New York. Similarly since consuming alcohol is totally prohibited, it is obvious that praying in an intoxicated state is also prohibited and the information that in intoxicants is "great sin and some profit for men; but the sin is greater than profit" also holds true.

4.     Qur�an does not contain any contradictions

The theory of abrogation does not imply that there is a contradiction in the Qur�an, since it is possible to follow all the verses of the Qur�an at the same time.

If there is a contradiction in the Qur�an, then it cannot be the word of Allah (swt).

"Do they not consider the Qur�an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (contradictions)."

 

 

And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion - so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say. What you term 'dumbing down' of Islam, I take as like Allah said, Islam is was made easy on us. If an old woman can stand up to Umar R.A and challenge his interpretations, then I dont see why any imam is more fool-proof. Ofcourse, the person needs to back up his/her stance with the Quran or Hadith, not just a 'cz I say so'. And that is why muslims let thier Mullahs or Taliban get away with what they say and do, 'cz they dont have the right to object to interpretations put forward by others - otherwise they are overstepping boundaries since they are but a comman, dumb man. 

 

What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . .

 

I anticipated such a response, but still did not jump the fence and assume.

 

A scholar is a learned person. And it all boils down to credibility, an educated, learned person versus a scholar with a 'degree'. Trust me bro, we already have our fill of 'qualified' scholars, btw 'qualified' scholars were part of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda too.

 

A 'degree' does not neccessarily reflect a scholar's correctness of opinions. You are ofcourse entitled to your opinions . . . however I felt safe to quote Zakir, because despite bieng a common-man, and not qualified - he is conscientious enough to back evrything up with resources and does not dilute what he says with personal opinions. I may not agree with his debates. . . but I still find it hard to discredit what he says.

 

And yes, he is a medical doc indeed, and he doesnt claim a qualification either.

What you are suggesting is similar to what the Church did, no need to think , or interpret/read religion - we'll do that for you. . .

you dont seem familiar with the particulars of the Mujtahids [Mullah Omar is not a mujtahid, just so we are clear] works so i don't see how you can have any sort of perspective on the subject....you simply agree they where great people without really knowing why or how.

so then how can your generalities be any kind of substitute for what is a matter of history at this point in time and we arnt attempting to refute that are we.




-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.

 

He may not be a "qualified scholar", but he has explained the concept of abrogation more clearly than anything else I have read so far.  Thanks, Chrysalis!

 

Rami, do you disagree with anything Naik has written?

I am interested in the opinions of as many Muslims as possible.  If there is a single "Islamic position" then that should become evident, but it doesn't sound like it.

 

Mostly I wanted to know if the concept of abrogation implied that some verses in the Quran were no longer valid.  Dr. Naik has explained it in a way that does not involve contradictions, which makes sense to me.  Do you agree with his explanation?

 

What it comes down to basically is that the muslims, like the christians and jews before them have chosen to raise the word of men over the words of Allah, instead of adhering to a belief without contradictions of text they chose a belief of conflict in which verses have to be abrogated through the doctrine of men as to validate their beliefs and in some cases their hostility and even violence against others.

 

 

 

 What is more, those people built a complete science on the subject of abrogation.

They invented rules for the abrogation and classified some verses as abrogated only for the actions. Some verses were to be recited but not to be active any more. Some other were abrogated for the meaning only. There was a complete science on this subject. I cannot recall all the rules they invented. There was nothing about that (those rules) in the Quran and Sunnah. It was only in their minds. They felt that it should be like that.

 ( More later, Insha Allah)

 

 

2:62 VERILY, those who became safe in faith (amanoo) as well as those who attained guidance (through the Jewish faith)( hadoo), and the Christians, and the Sabians    -all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds-shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear is upon them, nor do they grief.

 

2:256 THERE SHALL BE no coercion in the faith.  Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the opressor and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.

 

5:69 for, verily, those who have attained to faith as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Sabians,  and the Christians - all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds - no fear is upon them, nor do they grief.

 

 

"3:85:

For, if one goes in search of a way other than self-surrender (with the goal of attaining eternal peace with Allah, in arabic islaam.), it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the lost.

 

3:86 How would God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and [after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them?  For, God does not guide such evildoing folk.

 

and;

 

 9:73 O PROPHET! Strive hard against the deniers of the truth and the hypocrites, and be adamant with them.  And [if they do not repent,] their goal shall be hell -and how vile a journey's end!

 

 

You misunderstand Brother, if you think that analysing what the Imams did, and considering them fallible, autmatically means that one is disrespecting them or not acknowledging thier contribution.

 

 

From what I understand, Rami was referring to the 'flaws in logic' of Dr.Zakir's explanation of abrogation. Not the Quran itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is it told that there is no abrogating verse in the Quran?  It seems to me that al-Bakara 2:106 suggests that abrogation does happen, or at least can happen -- "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof."

 

I think the problem may be in translation. We are all in agreement that there can be no contradictions in the Quran; but as long as abrogation is understood to mean an extension or elaboration of a previous verse rather than a contradiction, then I see no difficulty.

 

 I am not writing any more. I shall wait for your response and would like that you please present the case of some abrogated verse of the Quran and present it with some surety from yourself too in support of it. Thanks.  mm

 

  You have presented the translation of the verse. It says "none of our revelation do we abrogate"  That means no verse is abrogated.

 

 

 

Yes, it could refer to earlier revelations, but I see no reason to assume that.  Surely unless otherwise specfied, "our revelation" would mean the current revelation, i.e. the Quran, wouldn't it?

 

I think we have seen some examples of abrogated verses already.  The verse that forbids coming to prayer intoxicated is a good one.  A later verse forbids intoxication at any time, which is "better" (more comprehensive) than the earlier one, but it does not contradict it.

I am looking forward to seeing a response to believer's question:

believer wrote: Which of these 2 verses is better? 002.062 YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.  ...  003.085 YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). ...

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

 

  There is no contradiction and no abrogation. verse 2:62 is telling every one to be good and peaceful. That is Islam. Even if one is a Jew or christian or a person of other faiths, if he/she believes in Allah and hereafter and he/she does good deeds then he/she has nothing to fear for the future and no sorrow for anything of the past. Remember that Muslims are included in all these conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are people who adhere to a faith because they find some benefit by adhering to that specific faith, the most common benefit is not to be an outcast from a social group or even a society and being accepted as part of a specific community,...but to The Almighty no religion is accepted except the way of seeking peace with Him above all others through adhering to the faith , faith is also ofcourse obeying His laws and commands, basically doing what pleases Him and keeping away from that which displeases Him.

 

 

So submission to The Merciful (to His Will) for the purpose of gaining His pleasure/eternal peace with Him is the sincere religion, and since He is The Truth (Al Haqq) and to Him our destination is, nothing can remain (forever) in existence except the truth.

 

 

 

Some questions for you:

 

What was first? the tuth or the lie?

which needed to be invented? the truth against the lie? or the lie against the truth?

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what further reply you would like.  My last response to you was 2008 August 20 at 11:57am.

 

But really, we do not disagree on anything substantial regarding abrogation.  As I understand it, there is only a small disagreement over terminology -- whether the word "abrogation" can be applied to the verses of the Quran.  But whether or not the word applies, I understand that you (and others) do not believe that there are any contradictions, and that is the main thing.

 

I will have more to say about the apparent contradiction that believer has raised when I have time.  Briefly, it seems to me that Christians by definition believe in the divinity of Christ, which means that it must be "a religion other than Islam" and therefore unacceptable to Allah according to 3:85.

Whether or not it is an example of abrogation, it certainly looks like a contradiction to me.  I am interested in what others have to say about it.

What was first? the tuth or the lie?

which needed to be invented? the truth against the lie? or the lie against the truth?

 

GOD always was so I would say truth was first.

 

It is always the lie that must be invented.  The truth is.

 

Ofcourse this holds also for all other "religions" that got instutionalized.

 The Quran is more than an Ocean. A wonder of Oceans. The wonders of the Quran have not all been explored by the scholars. And no one will ever be able to exhaust the wonders and secrets of the Quran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 yeah, it holds an evolution in the increasement in knowledge and in further broadening the way of Allah (the way of increasement in righteousness and true justice [sabeel Allah] ), eventhough it is a fact that there are always some who try to hinder (others) from the way of Allah way because they profit in one way or another from injustice and ignorance.

 

 

 believer, please explain clearly what you want to say. You have something in mind. Bring it out please. Thanks. There is no enmity against any one in Quran except the hostile disbelievers and attackers (Kaafirs).

 

 Peaceful Jews and christians, doing good deeds have nothing to fear. They submit to their God in their own way and perform their religious rites AND DO GOOD DEEDS. They will not be harmed at all. It is the duty of all Muslims to protect the sacred places, synagogues, temples of all religions.

Let us start a new thread about the tradition of travelin, which is the tradition of most if not all prophets and messengers of The Almighty, The Owner, and the reality on the ground (and above) with respect to those who claim to follow the way of the prophets....what i m trying to say is, "move on!".

According to 2:62; but 3:85 clearly says otherwise.  The central tenet of Christianity is the divinity of Christ.  It is very definitely "a religion other than Islam".  There is no getting around the contradiction here.  Either it is explained by abrogation or it cannot be explained at all.

 

What was happening to Mohammad when this verse was recorded?

 

 

When you read and study the Bible you always have to keep in mind the context.

 

 

 What that has got to do with abrogation in Quran?

 Most Muslims will reply you in the negative sense. They would tell you that she deserves hell. But that is from Allah. That is the final decision.

 

 

 

 

Ok look at these verses especially the last one,

 

5:116 AND LO! God said: Asad(5,139) O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, ` worship me and my mother as deities beside God'?" [Jesus] answered: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to [say]! Had I said this, Thou wouldst indeed have known it! Thou knowest all that is within myself, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is Thou alone who fully knowest all the things that are beyond the reach of a created being's perception.

 

5:117 Nothing did I tell them beyond what Thou didst bid me [to say]: `Worship God, [who is] my Sustainer as well as your Sustainer.' And I bore witness to what they did as long as I dwelt in their midst; but since Thou hast caused me to die, Thou alone hast been their keeper: Asad(5,140) for Thou art witness unto everything.

 

5:118 If thou cause them to suffer - verily, they are Thy servants; and if Thou forgive them - verily, Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Furthermore, Ron, the people of other faiths doing good work, niether accusing nor abusing the people of other faiths will have their reward with Allah and will not be wronged. But please remember that now the real message is in the Quran for the entire mankind forever.

 

 

According to The Bible the place of Hellfire does not exist.  It is a pagan myth that is not real!

 

Your Granmother is in the grave awaiting the ressurection into an earthly paradice by God's good will.

Explanation of verse (2:62) in Tafheem

 

 

(2:62) Rest assured that whosoever from among the Muslims or the Jews or the Christians or the Sabaeans believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs good deeds, he will have his reward with his Lord and he will have no cause for fear and grief. *80

 

*80. The context of the verse makes it clear that it is not attempting to enumerate in detail all the articles of faith in which one should believe, or all the principles of conduct which one should follow in order to merit reward from God. These matters are mentioned elsewhere, in their appropriate places. The aim of the verse is merely to repudiate the illusion cherished by the Jews that, by virtue of their being Jews, they have a monopoly of salvation. They had long entertained the notion that a special and exclusive relationship existed between them and God. They thought, therefore, that all who belonged to their group were predestined to salvation regardless of their beliefs and actions,. whereas all non-Jews were predestined to serve as fodder for hell-fire.
To clarify this misgiving the Jews are told that what really matters in the sight of God is true faith and good deeds rather than formal affiliation with a certain religious community. Whoever has true faith and good deeds to his credit is bound to receive his reward, since God will judge people on the basis of merit rather than on the grounds that a man's name happens to be listed in the world as a member of one religious community or the other.

 

Only God knows the fate of people in the hereafter. He's the best judge and only he knows who truly believed in him and did good to please him. With our limited comprehension we cant and dont have the right to come to conclusions.

My father, as far as I and the people around him knew, was a righteous man; a good  muslim but I dont know what his fate in the hereafter will be. I can only pray and hope for his success.

Allah says in the Quran, that those who associate partners to him and work mischief will be losers in the hereafter. We can see people doing this but we cant judge their fate in the hereafter.

Like minuteman said, people who believe in the one and only God and do good deeds; their efforts dont go wasted. If you believe that God is the most just and the most merciful, you dont have to worry about your grandma.

 

 

Cool, so as a Muslim you believe that those Christians that believe that Jesus died for our salvation and do good works will be with GOD.

 

"people who believe in the one and only God and do good deeds; their efforts dont go wasted. If you believe that God is the most just and the most merciful"

 

Again cool!! 

 Yes there is a reward for the good deeds. And one of the basic good deeds is not to hate or deprive any one. It is in the verse 2:62 "Their reward is with their Lord....."

 

 

 

Oh do you mean the ones with the big brown eyes?  Some will receive paradise - thosr that fight for Allah.  Maybe the women that do good become those with the big brown eyes!?!

 

 

Like we Muslims like to say Ron, 'Walla hu alam' i.e. Only Allah knows.

 

I'm surprised that noone apart from Saladin pointed that out, that we as humans and especially as muslims, are in NO position to 'predict' 'assume' 'expect' or 'comment' on ANYBODY's status in the hereafter. That is up to Allah, and Allah alone. And He will decide, as He deems fit - who should go where.

 

Muslims are not allowed to comment on the afterlife of fellow muslims as well, even if it be to say 'oh, he/shes definitely going to heaven' .  We do not know, and should not try to say so.  

 

 

 

 

>

For the faithful, Allah being pleased is the best reward, even better then paradise itself,

 

and as is mentioned in this verse http://islamicity.com/mosque/quran/5.htm#119 - 5:119 :

Qala Allahu hatha yawmu yanfaAAu alssadiqeena sidquhum lahum jannatun tajree min tahtiha alanharu khalideena feeha abadan radiya Allahu AAanhum waradoo AAanhu thalika alfawzu alAAatheemu

Allah said "this is the day that the truthfull benefit from their truthfulness, for them are gardens under which river flow, forever abiding in it, Allah has become well pleased with them, and they with Him, THAT is the great achievement ("victory"),

 

As for the brown eyed virgins in paradise...maybe this is something that they did not mention on TV or has not been mentioned yet but....for someone of faith who has a hard time not to fall into fornication (which is an easy thing to do), a promise of women -untouched and undefiled- in paradise from Allah (The Only God) is an encouragement for the servant and a thing to look forward to, and at the same time it is ofcourse also a way by which Allah protects His servant from the sin of fornication...this is ofcourse only for those who truely believe,.

 

Let me explain, you are a young man standing before a fine blond/brunette (who might be drunk of her trunk and) ready to receive... how hard can it get?

the promise of virgins/women in the hereafter sure would help  if you are a true believer who has a hard time not to fall for the sin of the flesh(lol) and is debating wether to go for  "the quick fix" or not.

 

(clear!)

 

 

 

[12:21] And the man from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, 'Make his stay among us honourable. Maybe we will benefit from him or we may adopt him as a son.' And thus did We establish Joseph in the land, and We did so that We might also teach him the interpretation of things. And Allah has full power over His decree, but most men know not.

[12:22] And when he attained his age of full strength, We granted him judgment and knowledge. And thus do We reward those who do good.

[12:23] And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him against his will. And she bolted the doors, and said, 'Now come.' He said, 'I seek refuge with Allah. He is my Lord. He has made my stay with you honourable. Verily, the wrongdoers never prosper.'

[12:24] And she made up her mind with regard to him, to seduce him, and he made up his mind with regard to her, to resist her. If he had not seen manifest Sign of his Lord, he could not have shown such determination. Thus did it come about that We might turn away from him all evil and indecency. Surely, he was one of Our chosen servants.

[12:25] And they both raced to the door, and in the struggle she tore his shirt from behind, and they found her lord at the door. She said to him, 'What shall be the punishment of one who intended evil to thy wife, save imprisonment or a grievous chastisement?'

[12:26] Joseph said, 'She it was who sought to seduce me against my will.' And a witness of her household bore witness saying, 'If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has spoken the truth and he is a liar;

[12:27] 'But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she has lied and he is of the truthful'.

[12:28] So when he saw his shirt torn from behind, he said, Surely, this is a device of you women. Your device is indeed mighty;

(What do I have to do to get a straight answer from you guys???)

 

Okay, let me rephrase:  Would someone like my grandmother, a devout Christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus, be in heaven or hell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, I dont know how to make it any straighter, Ron. As unbelievable as it may sound, Human biengs do not have any knowledge of the unseen, and cannot predict the future, nor the fate or anyone.  

Like it or not, such are the limitations of bieng mortal. Any human post-prophetic times, who who claims knowledge about the future/fate is loony.

 

No muslim, can tell you where your grandmother , or someone like her will end up. God only knows. Hopefully we'll all get the answer to our Question on the day of judgement. Until then, there is nothing we can do.