Talk:Naskh (tafsir)

Rewrite needed?

I'm just a random reader, but I find this article incomprehensible. Those who know what this is talking about, please edit this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.179.96.184 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also found this article very difficult to understand and would to see it edited for comprehension —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.178.109 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a technical and also controversial area of Islamic theology and legal interpretation, so there almost inevitably will be a sprinkling of Arabic words and theological or legal terminology. if you have specific concerns, they could probably be worked on. AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a "few scholars"

"...directed at the [sic] what a few scholars historically believed might be a problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin basises of Islamic holy law... Naskh has been criticized by many scholars, who state that it is a term used by those who dislike Islam to attempt to prove it wrong.

Taking this out for the following reasons:

• 1) Assertions are completely uncited

• 2) Assertion that only a "few scholars" recognized naskh is absolutely false. There are literally dozens of exegetical works devoted specifically to naskh, only some of which are mentioned in the article. This is in addition to the many more general works of tafsir which contain discussions of the topic. The reality of Qur'anic/Sunnic abrogation was acknowledged by most of the major legal and scholarly authorities of classical Islam: Qurtubi, Shafi'i, Malik, al-Ghazali, Suyuti, Tabari, etc. In fact, in my research I did not find mention of one classical authority who completely rejected the doctrine. If you find one, though, please include it in the article.

• 2) Naskh has been criticized by many scholars, who state that it is a term used by those who dislike Islam to attempt to prove it wrong. Who are these scholars? And why historically believe? If you have evidence the doctrine is rejected by most contemporary Islamic jurists please add a section on modern attitudes with references to contemporary authorities. Yet in any case this does not change the fact that naskh was recognized in Islamic jurisprudence throughout almost its entire history; the article should not misleadingly make it appear that what would be a very novel attitude towards the doctrine is somehow historically normative.

Jleybov 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs cites in the article, use of quotations is excessive

This article, which deals with a very controversial subject, needs to have cites located inline. By this I mean that a statement would be followed by the cite that supports it. Listing the references at the bottom might be okay for some articles, but when dealing with controversial subjects you need to know which reference a particular statement is supported by. Also, it is unclear whether the article uses any references at all, with the references section just being a list of the works that are quoted in the article. I suspect that this is the case, as it would explain all of the quotations and the references are the same works that were quoted. The only one I did not see in the article is the reference Quranic Studies by John Wansbrough and Andrew Rippin. Also, there are plenty of statements in the non-quotation parts of the article that need cites.

The number and amount (in terms of total content) of quotations is excessive. I have never seen an article which relies so heavily on quotations on Wikipedia before, not even including articles on books or movies. The article should cite the works, not just quote them.

Finally, the article is over reliant on sources written by Andrew Rippin and John Burton. An article of this size should have a wider variety of sources, especially when the topic is controversial. -- Kjkolb 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Theology

As someone on the outside looking in, the problem I have with Abrogation is that it makes God appear changeable - perhaps even fickle. As I understand it, God (through Muhammad) said one thing and then, a decade or two later, turned around and said something substantially different. If God is omniscient, He would lay out basic principles from the start with no inclination toward - or need for - second thoughts later on. The theological discussion of the implications of Abrogation is dense and almost incomprehensible. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Abrogation doesn't inherently make God look fickle especially in a more mainstream religious narrative, however, the presentation of abrogation in this particular way citing nothing more than a handful of orientalist scholars that rely on dubious citations in Tabari, etc. does indeed make God look fickle, as the article and its sources intend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.227.144 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

9:29

What is the modern position of scholars regarding 9:29 and the "sword verse" against the Pagans? I think the idea that these abrogate most of the earlier "tolerant" verse has been largely discarded both by the leading Sunni and Shi'a theologians during the last century and that most now hold that Jihad can only be defensive... Some explanations on this would be welcome. Is the theory of eternal Jihad against unbelievers still widely accepted or not? And if not, on what grounds exactly do scholars discard it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC) 69.155.141.161 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Whether you like it or not, naskh was the majority accepted position among Muslim scholars for many centuries, and rather few Muslims seemed to feel that the idea was very problematic until the rise of modern Christian-Muslim polemics and debates in the late 19th century or early 20th century... AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people dislike naskh as a concept and anybody who's done a little reading into the formation of Islamic law knows at least a little bit about it. People really only dislike the intellectually dishonest habit of using wikipedia as a mouthpiece for a handful of orientalist scholars putting forth a rather dubious perspective. That is to say, wikipedia is not the battleground for polemics, whether Muslim-Christian or Orientalist-Other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.227.144 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"...wikipedia is not the battleground for polemics, whether Muslim-Christian or Orientalist-Other."

Should not be, not is not. It exactly is that and nobody desiring an education on Islam or the Middle East should go within a million miles of wikipedia. It is an excellent introductory source for other subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.141.161 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re. the comments: "dishonest habit of using wikipedia as a mouthpiece", "nobody [...] should go within a million miles of wikipedia": the entire point of Wikipedia is that you can improve it. Become an editor. If you think that the subject is contentious and find the current incarnation of the page biased, provide better or additional authoritative references. If you think it has no good educational value, provide those authoritative valuable educational references.

Bias

This article doesn't even contain a single citation for a traditional of even modern muslim imam on Naskh. It only shows the dubious opinions of 19th century and contemporary orientalist and even non-mainstream western revisionist historians (ex. John Burton, Andrew Rippin). Second, it falsely implies in a very strong matter that the majority of Muslims thought all the peace-tolerance verses were abrogated, even though the links on the bottom of the page refute this lie. This article also contains many historical inaccuraties like claiming the Mu`tazilite rejected the doctrine because the quran is eternal when in actuality the Mu`tazilite never even believed that the quran was the word of God in the first place. Another falsehood is that the Ahamdis rejected it because of the nonexistent issue over 9:5, when in actuality he the sect's founder used it in is books frequently. The whole issue of naskh is not even as controversial as this page implies it to be, yet anti-muslims everywhere always use this topic to give dominance to any seemingly "intolerant" or "violet" verse over the opposite. Naskh deals with legal and juristic issues, not faith or beliefs as many westerners assume, and many contemporary ta'wil still use it. The authors of this page (AnonMoos and Supertouch) are obviously just encouraging islamophobia and right-wing bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdem2 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it highly disturbing that editors would continue to post bias trash on the main the article. The fact that there isn't a single quote or perspective shown from a Muslim scholar (medieval or modern) shows how 1-sided this article is. While most Muslim jurist (both orthodox and otherwise) did acknowledge Naskh, there was never an unanimous agreement on what is abrogated and what isn't (and how to determine it either). Also, very the idea that all or even most traditional jurist believed that 9:5 and 9:29 abrogated all peaceful and tolerate verses is an orientalist fantasy and has been refuted in the links below the references. Islamophobes love this myth, as it helps them portray Islam as even more violent and intolerant than it really is. There are historical inaccuracies like claiming the Mu`tazilite (who actually accepted Naskh) rejected the doctrine because the Quran was the word of God when in reality they didn't believe that the Quran was eternal to begin with. Same with the Ahamdis. And also the popular myth that all tolerant verses are from Mecca and all violent ones from Medina. Naskh was always about legal and juristic issues, not theology as many westerners believe, and no Medieval scholar (orthodox or not) has ever saw it as violating the omniscience of Allah nor as implying contradictions in the Quran. Rather, it was an in acknowledgement that laws change over time. The concept abrogation exist in the Bible and other religious traditions too, a fact islamophobes love to look over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.205.162 (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Macdem2: I agree with both of you. I'll try to make improvements on this article so as to remove bias.

09:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Not sure of the accuracy of all these complaints but do know Wainsbrough and Burton section "challenge the mainstream claims on the authenticity of the Quran", but say nothing about abrogation. Have deleted them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Takhsīs / Takhsees (specification/exception)

I think this article could benefit from the 'Abrogated?' section of this article: Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations by Ansar Al-'Adl

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.altafsir.com/Eidah_AlQuran.asp?SoraName=1&Ayah=0&img=G

  Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained Edits and removal of criticism of Naskh

@FreeatlastChitchat: Please discuss your issue here before deleting the section arbitrarily. Your claim that the source you removed is "unreliable" requires justification. Parwez is a well regarded scholar and his view has merit. It seems like you're just censoring the opposing view. Code16 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

rewrite

Am working on a major rewrite of this article, which will take months (I'm afraid). Have found parts of it unreadable, disorganized, and some of the text not supported by cited sources. I'm not sure if the article is "biased" but it does seem to have a snide tone in some parts. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Done with rewrite. Hope it is an improvement. I'm burnout trying to get through Burton's writings. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)