Jaami'at StackExchange al-Islamyya

« first day (807 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3772 days later) »

Jack Douglas

16:23

Hello

Related to this answer but not the primary subject matter, I'm interested in how to interpret the Quran generally and spotted the answer here distinguishes between 'meccan period' verses and other (later?) verses.

I want to ask a question about when one part of the Quran supercedes another - is that sort of thing on-topic here and have I missed a pre-existing question on the subject?

goldPseudo

16:42

@JackDouglas I can't recall any questions particularly focussed thereon.

it would be on-topic as far as I know. the concept you're thinking of is called naskh.

Naskh (tafsir)

Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation"; it shares the same root as the words appearing in the phrase al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh (الناسخ والمنسوخ, "the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"). It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin bases of Islamic holy law: the Quran and the Prophetic Sunna. == History == The emergence of naskh (initially as practice and then as fully elaborated theory) dates back to the first centuries of Islamic civilization. Almost all classical naskh works, for instance, begin by...

the meccan vs medinan verses aren't necessary abrogative, but they do distinguish between the two major points of time/contexts of Muhammad's ministry: When he was living in Mecca (wherein he was a minority preaching in a predominantly idol-worshipping community) and when he was living in Medina (and preaching as the head of the Islamic state)

Jack Douglas

Thanks that's a really useful start for me. Presumably the Medina period is later? Is there a correspondence between Sura numbering and date of writing?

goldPseudo

there's a few, but there's a lot of guesswork involved.

nothing canonical.

and since the revelation was spread out over time, at least some of the larger surahs were revealed partially in Mecca and partially in Medina.

my dead-tree Qur'an lists in the header of each sura whether it's Meccan or Medinan, but it's hard to find anything more precise than that without digging into the hadith literature.

Jack Douglas

I think I'm going to ask something like: "Is there a general principle that in cases where Meccan and Medinan revelation appears to conflict, the Medinan revelation abrogates the Meccan?"

Does that sound like something that'll attract useful answers?

goldPseudo

16:59

it could.

i don't know much about naskh myself, so no clue how "obvious" the answer should be to someone in the know.

2 hours later…

Mujahid مجاهد

19:23

@JackDouglas it is a great question actually, I misunderstood it when I first read it, but on my third read of it it is really great, and I would say it would attract good and useful answers, which sadly on here might be next year (but if you ask it I will try to answer it the best I can). The question is a great example question of a basic question on Uloom Al Quran (Sciences of the Quran) that we (at least I) would like more on here

though I am not totally sure of the usage of the word "conflict"

goldPseudo

Q: Is there an automatic principle that Medinan revelation may abrogate Meccan but not vice versa?

I understand there is a widely accepted concept of Naskh or 'abrogation' that may apply when interpreting the Quran. I also believe it to be true that it isn't known in all cases which of two verses was written first (unless they are in the same Sura), but I think I'm right in saying that all th...