No Compulsion in Religion(Surah 2:256-Abrogated or not?)

[UnidHali]

This was before the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, was commanded to fight the people of the Book. But then Allah's saying (There is no compulsion in religion…) was abrogated and the Prophet was commanded to fight the people of the Book in Surah Repentance”.

That's from the great Imam al-Wahidi's Asbab al nazool, yes it's abrogated.

Look it up on altafsir.

[ozzycda]

@UnidHali I linked that site amongst many others and referenced many scholars and Tafsirs on this subject. It would appear that the majority consensus of scholars like i said in the video does not view this verse to have been abrogated. However thank for pointing out some scholar who does think so.

[Takaja316]

if the verse was not officially noted to be abrogated, your book has serious contradictions. What a joke.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 Not really contradictions. If you look up the verses in question in the Tafsirs, are even note what I say in this video and other videos regarding Surah 9, you find that all of the verses go together, and need to be looked at in a larger picture given the topic of warfare. This does take a little bit of book work since you have to look at each verse in the Quran pertaining to a specific topic, understandably not every person will want to take the time to do that.

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda .I don't see how it's fair to use the historical context of the sword verses to dismiss them as redundant in the 21st century, and on the other hand accept verse 5.32 as applicable. 5.32 is a mishmash or 'plagiarism' of Judaic Talmud and Mishnah, that speaks of the stroy of cann and abel, and thus excludes the verse to the context of that story. The verse is even retarded enough to say 'we ordained to the children of israel,' Thus making is only applicable to the children of israel.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 I did not say that you need ONLY look at the historical context. Yes the Tafsirs make mention of the historical context, but as I have explained in other videos the way Muslim scholars and educated laymen understand any verse in the Quran is through a high standard of exegesis which does include historical context as well as gathering all of the verses on fighting and making a judgment which does translate into fiqh. Also lets stick to one topic instead of jumping to another cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. unless your done discussing the first point you raised. If you have any evidence that the Prophet actually stole these stories from the Jewish tradition then please supply me with such information. I have done a video on this subject already refuting such allegations and Islamic Awareness has already done a scholarly article showing that the story first appeared in the Quran and NOT the Jewish Talmud or Mishnah. Furthermore you are assuming you know how Muslims cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. view surah 5:32. We know that the verse starts off by directing it to the Children of Israel. However in our Tafsirs we are told that these commandments also apply to us as well. Just because it was first revealed to the Jews does not mean we do not follow it as well. Also in a hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim the Prophet pbuh quoted this verse and directed it to the Muslims. The commentary for both hadith collections is clear on this matter. Hope that helps.

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda just think about it critically, regardless of what the authorities label as an abrogation. The sword verses are a stark opposite of the earlier peaceful mecca verses, it's that simple.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 Yeah if you want to limit your scope of research to simplicity then be my guest. However when studying religion and looking at what the scholars and the vast majority of educated laymen due to such scholarship say regarding these verses and the nature of the subject, that gives us a much vaster understanding of this topic. One can say the sky appears to be blue and leave at that, and one can also understand WHY that is the case. Peace.

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda Learning why the sky is blue, does not change the fact that it's blue.

The quran was meant for all times, and the koran even states that it is a simple book. Islam would not survive in the 21st century if it were not for people like you. Ironically, the more you justify the Koran, the further you veer away from the truth.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 Not sure what you mean by that. I am not simply "justifying" anything. I am presently the scholarly thought which makes up the majority of Muslim theological position on these matters. I realize that looking into Islamic scholarship and how Muslims actually view these verses and have done so for centuries can be an upset to those who wish to just read a couple verses out of context and go with the simplified route, but again this is not my problem but other people's problem.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. Islam, like the other major world religions will survive the 21st century. Ironically enough the ones that will not are the people who do not care about academic or traditional scholarship but simply wish to open to random pages and make random accusations without any evidence or even bothering to ask "hmmmm I wonder what Muslims actually think about these verses?" or "hmmm I wonder what Islamic scholarship says about this." Those sort of people will not get very far.

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda It's clear then that your religion has reformed over the years, That's good to hear. peace. 

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda I don't think you've read the early biographies of muhammad. You may not be justifying, as you think it's the truth. But the scholars and imans who've told you to say these things definitely are.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 I have read the early biographies of Muhammad and even have read the hadith material that was done earlier or at the same time as those early biographies. You also have to understand that when reading those books(Sira-Biography) and Hadith collections one must understand hadith transmission and authentication. Muslims since the time of the writing of those early biographies rejected most of the content due to the unauthentic narrations found therein. I mentioned this concept in cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. my latest video entitled Ramadan 2010, where I go through this subject amongst others. I have read the earliest biographies and the earliest hadith collection and also have a pretty good understanding of Hadith authentication and transmission. I would recommend a book entitled "Images of Muhammad-Narratives of the Prophet of Islam across the centuries" by Tarif Khalidi and "Muhammad" by Karen Armstrong. Both are modern books and discuss the documentation of the Prophet's cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. life and the authenticity of reports that are very much documented by the science of hadith and the scholars who are educated in that field of Islamic study, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Again no scholar or Imam has "told me" to say any of what I say in my videos. I am not a parrot. I read and do research for myself and understand academic scholarship and study and based on that make up my own mind regarding these topics. Do check out those books, hope they help.

[Takaja316]

@ozzycda And this is where we will never agree. Those haditths are biographies fine. You simply choose to ignore them because they do not portray your religion how you'd like. As i said before, keep justifying, you're only veering further and further away from the truth.

[ozzycda]

@Takaja316 I would say we will not agree on this because Muslim since the time of the Prophet and his companions, wives and friends all agreed on what became the Science of Hadith, in others words to look at his sayings and figure out if they were authentic or not. It has been around since the beginning of Islam and is not some sort of justification for things we may or may not like. However I can see why for certain people its annoying because they want the hadiths to say things fro them cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. that they find is "negative" or "proves their case against Islam" and then find out that Muslim do not accept what it is they bring to the table. However be clear that as per the Science of Hadith the majority of Muslim accept the hadiths in Shaih Bukhari and Muslim along with any authentic hadith found in the other collections. However it is the Sira(Biographies) we mus be skeptic about because they do contain hadiths that are not authentic and based from people that did cont.

[ozzycda]

@ozzycda cont. have proper knowledge in gathering and authenticating hadiths and this was known to their fellow scholars and in the case of Tabari, even to himself. The Science of Hadith is a complex subject just like all the branches of study that make up Islam and cannot be summed down to we Muslims reject things we dont like. Ibn Ishaq's Sira as a mix of "good" and "bad" hadiths and yet we are told to not accept his ENTIRE BOOK because he was not a scholar of hadith etc. Peace.

[ah05075]

asalaamu alaikum brother,

muhammad asad has the stance where the abrogation refers to the scripture before the Quran and to me this seems very rationale. if u may voice ur opinion no this matter. it seems evident enough to me that u agree that some verses are abrogated but please i'd like to hear from u. may peace be with u

[ozzycda]

@ah05075 Walikum Salam

I do agree with Muhammad Asad on the concept that the Quran abrogated the previous revelations. It does make sense to me.

[KAOSKTRL]

What year was 2:256 uttered?

Can you prove the modern interpretations are canonical ?

Or are they just transparent lies?

No. You cant.

[ozzycda]

@KAOSKTRL I can actually. The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) in the hadith collections started the concept of Tafsir, which was then carried on my his companions. The four schools of thought in Sunni Islam have carried on the concept of Tafsir(commentary on the meaning of the Quran, i.e. interpretations). Muslims consider them authentic and a vital part of understanding the Quran.

[papasmurfXXX]

remember religion is based on faith and faith is done due to ones choosing or freewill, if it was a faith that was forced, than it wasn;t the persons own forced faith, it was a false faith making the religion false

Like freedom and choice, persons own decisions , there's no compulsion in that, same as if acccepting islam, they cannot be forced like that

[papasmurfXXX]

Let there be no compulsion "in" religion. that's why compulsions allowed when out of it in the start, if your in theres no compulsion, but when your out, there is

[nellyvino]

please ozzycda give me a link to the intro song/recitation. tell me the name i can download it

[ozzycda]

Someone gave it to me, no idea what it is called, and where to find it sorry.

[zaytoon88]

ous,

i suggest you read any introductory textbook on the sciences of the quran to get a more balanced view of this topic. I also have Yasir Qadhi's book and he gives good evidences. As a matter of fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to just this issue.

It seems you are relying way too much on the opinions of Shabir ally in this specific regard. Shabir himself bases many of his theories on naskh and mansookh on the works of john burton, an orientalist who Qadhi refutes in the same book!

[Ous114]

I think you should read my argument of nasekh and manssokh regarding 4:11 abrogating 2:180 in my discussions below with imadhurata. Unfortunately people care more about tafsirs than the Quran and reason. The argument goes like this: If the Quran says something and a tafsir says something else then the tafsir is true and the Quran in false.

[LTLos3r]

Salaam ozzy, again your videos are good but could I please ask you to say peace be upon him after you say the prophet or his name (peace be upon him)?

[ozzycda]

Your right thanks for the reminder. Walikum Salam.

[Kite208]

and BTH how many verses have been Abrogated?

[zafthedon]

Salaam

Great video - once again

[jaed123]

Excellent!!

[muslim610]

Excellent video bro. Peace bro.

[Ous114]

You do a great job of defending Islam. I wish however you would attempt to defend it without using tafsirs. These are interpretations passed down to us from the 7th century and there is no reason to believe they are accurate. As Ibn Kathir said " The Quran explains itself"

[ozzycda]

I thank you for your support. However I see no issue with using Tafsirs they are have been considered legit by the Companions of the Prophet as well as the classical scholars and scholars today. I agree that the highest level of Tafsir is the Quran on itself but that does not mean the top classical Tafsirs are not legit. Just my opinion hence why I used them. Peace

[Ous114]

Thanks for your reply. The reason I mention the tafsirs is because I have realized that tafsirs are are highly influenced by the times in which they are written. I have posted a response giving you an example of such a tafsir. Abrogation of some verses by other verses is another illogical concept introduced to us back then.

[imadhurata]

that does surprise me, you actually came to that conclusion independently?

i would have come to a completely different conclusion, seeing the simlitudes between various tafseers down the years.

those tafseers which are considered the ummuhaat, i.e source books, those biggest writers, normally 1 of a generation, agree on 95% if not more on the variation of topics.

really in the light of usuul you can see why...... btw their is plent of usuul establishing naasikh wa mansuukh.

[Ous114]

Mainstream Islam believes in Abrogation within the Quran. This is something that really disturbs me. Sura 9 verse 5 abrogated over 100 verses in the Quran including 2:256. There is no proof that nasisk and masnookh exist from the Quran. Abrogation is only between revelations and not verses.

[imadhurata]

well friend, naasikh wa mansuukh isn't exactly abrogation, it is a principle layered throught the quran, and sunnah, it's not a case of one verse nullifying the previous ones, it's one of complimenting and adding onto the previous verses.

no one verse is viewed in isolation, all need to be taken, and it's never the case that an ayah, hadith is disregarded.

[imadhurata]

well there is no proof of your understanding of abrogation in the quran, ofcourse but there is plenty for naasikh wa mansuukh.

the mere fact of the evolution of salaah, the stages of the fobidding acohol........ and many other things is proof itself.

then you have a verse explaining why he has done so, explaining that the latter is better then the former.

shariaah as a whole is naasikh of all other previous shariaah.

[ozzycda]

Mainstream Islam does NOT believe that 2:256 was abrogated or that Surah 9:5 abrogates 100 verses or more. Sorry for jumping into this conversation but I have to ask, did you even listen to my video? I addressed and refuted the points you just mentioned in this comment.

[imadhurata]

ous another point about tafseer writers, you say that 8 and 9 century as if all are as far back as that,

zamakhshri 538 hijri

razi 606 hijri

qurtabi 671 hijri

ibn kathir 774 hijri

baidhaawi 791 hijri

suyuti 864 hijri

shokaani 1250 hijri

[imadhurata]

ous

another interesting aside. it isn't actually the tafseer writers whomake a case for naasikh wa mansuukh, it's the writers of usuul ul fikh who best estiblish the case, they establish it on quranic verses, hadith, and sahaabs opinion and consensus, books like al risaalah by shafi'i, musasfa by ghazali, ahkaam fi usuul il ahkaam, usuul ul sarkhasi......... these books establish the case well with overwheming proofs.

[Ous114]

Ok Guys let me ask you this:

Do you believe 2:180 abrogates 4:11? and if so Why?

[ozzycda]

Ibn Kathir explains this subject rather well in his Tafsir when he says that 2L180 was abrogated, the Companions who knew the Prophet stated this, and he supplies a number of Hadiths and opinions of the Companions and Successors to back it up. However the Companions also said, that the general meaning of the verse was NOT abrogated, that its meaning was still to be observed for those who have no fixed inheritence as seen in chapter 4.

[ozzycda]

Why I personally believe this is that fact that Sharia is derived fro the Quran and Sunnah. The Tafsirs are important because they contain the rulings of verses and explanations from the Companions who of course got their rulings from the Prophet himself. Hence why it is reliable to accept their statements as inshrined in the Tafsirs when it comes to WHY a verse was abrogated.

[Ous114]

Thanks for your reply. Another question if you dont mind:

If I die and leave in my will 100% of my money to a school in South Africa eventhough I have 2 children.

Is that allowed based on the Quran?

Is is allowed based on Hadiths?

Thanks

[imadhurata]

well to be honest, i haven't studied to that degree...............

but what i think would be the case is that with your money you do as you want, so it would goto the school, but that presciption is before your death, it's not heritance, rather it's YOUR wish.

besides islam encourages that you give charity 1st to your family.

so there is the difference, money left without a prescribed wish would be split in accordance with the law.

please don't hold me to this.

[Ous114]

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. You can leave your money to whoever you want. However under Islamic law today, only a third of your money can be left to persons outside the persons mentioned in 4:11. So the will(waseya) I want to leave would be rejected. Now, the problem I have is that 4:11 clearly gives me that right. I guide you to the below words in that verse:

مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ

[imadhurata]

no under islamic law you can leave your money to whoever you want........... that's what i SAID, don't say something else.

others might believe otherwise, there is a difference of opinion.

so don't exactly me!

[ozzycda]

Hmmmm well im not a scholar I suggest forwarding your questions to Islamonline they might be able to help you out with that.

[imadhurata]

ofcourse if you do it, either a relative of the decease or the person dead as his will and you have established your opinion through what you see as what the quran prescribes than that what quran is to you.

so it would be allowed based on quran and sunnah. but if you think it is forbidden based on the evidences and you do it, than you would have done something wrong.

i don't see the relevence to your question.

[imadhurata]

finally though i said i believe it isnt mansuukh, for those that do, they believe that the naasikh is complimented by the mansuukh, so like what ozzy says, 2:180 isn't ignored but is taken into account where ppl have no relatives.

[imadhurata]

what i said is some people believe the two hukm, i.e heritance and wills aren't related, they are seperate.

a will will be YOUR wish.

heritance is money that has been left behind that has no prescription for it.

so the second type fall under heritance law the 1st doesn't.

GET IT! thats what i said

then i said, even if i didnt, wouldnt i trust that god knows better then me where best to place the money. ie it's more charitable with my sons then a school.

[Ous114]

One last thing :

Al Tirmidi quotes "La Waseya le Wareth" or "No will for people entitled to inheritance". How can I accept this over the Quran?

[imadhurata]

OFCOURSE

do you know how many time a will has unjustly given favors to a favorite.

giving charity to the poor, or a cause is one thing but allocating money in favor of one kid, thats wrong by any definition....... seperate from islam.......... god only knows how many family disputes have occur over such things.

leave it upto god, that's what i say.

[imadhurata]

i still can't wrap my head around you second not so smart example, if i had a brother with downs and my father passed, we share the money, i take his share, i will use his share for him and i will use mine for me and him, maybe using it to set up a business, either way, i'm now responsible for him.

i just don't get you.

[Ous114]

God leaves the justice up to you initially. It is up to you to be fair.You might have 2 adults, you might have one adult and one child. You might have one with down syndrome and one normal. All situations are not the same and should not be treated the same. In the inheritance laws, God is prescribing general justice.

[imadhurata]

you have little faith, or belief that the actual message is the truth......... you don't want to find out the actual meaning in full context............. you think you will be torn, on one hand you will be convinced this was what was intented by the quanic author and that isn't what you think is right.

whereas i believe that actual truth will satisfy me inside as being right, so i seek the actual meaning.

and thats what tafseer can establish.

[Ous114]

I believe the Quran is 100% accurate and everything else is succeptable to error including my own. Try and read the Quran without the tafsirs and hadiths and you will be shocked like I was.

[imadhurata]

i've not found that to be true, i've found the hadith to be compatible and complimentory to the quran. i've found the famous tafseers to be convincing enlightening which establish the context of the verse and eluminate the verse i read, not obsure the apparent meaning.

once i learnt arabic, one of the 1st things that hit me hard about tafseer was the humble manner in which a mufseer presents his points, never undermining others', never emphasize his own.

[Ous114]

I love and admire the mufasireen. Unfortunately sometimes they have been wrong and we all have to understand that. If the Quran says something clearly, no mufasir should be given the power to change that.

[imadhurata]

so i take it you are a quranite? do you not believe in hadith as a principle? or is it the case of mistrust of all source material?

btw about your reply to ozzy, why did you ask me to read the quran in isolation, yet in the verse quoted if read in isolation then "silm/salm/salam" only has islam as it's meaning, "sulh" makes no sense given the context of the sentence, even when taking into account the surrounding verses.

[Ous114]

Do you speak Arabic fluently? Because I have a few videos in Arabic I would like to get your opinion on.

[imadhurata]

my arabic suffices my requirements.

more to the point my experiences with arabs has taught me that they can be more full of it then any non arabic speaking muslim i've ever come across.

so i'm not much interested in some random arabs opinions.

so if you have ended our dialogue thenthat is it.

may allah guide you to islam.

[Ous114]

I understand. As far as you other questions:

1- I dont trust hadith's for reasons that are too many to mention.

2-As far as the word "silm". No interpreter has the right to change the meaning of the word. The translators are putting words in God's mouth.

You should in no way accept this!

[hurataimad]

well friend it's you who is trying to change the meaning to excluded islam, because islam IS one of the meanings of silm........ you see their are many meanings for the word, but it's not me who is denying them, IT YOU.

the word silm means sulh, islam, istislaam, musaalama........... and the only ones that fit the context properly is ISLAM. sulh would make the sentence nonsensical.

[Ous114]

Islam does not mean Silm. It is used 6 times in the Quran as Shabir Ally says , never does it mean Islam. If u think that Al Qurtoby explains the Quran better than the Quran itself does then God help you.

As far as the context, the word fits in perfectly wit the context.

Peace

May God guide you.

[hurataimad]

the lexicon definition OF the word silm IS islam.

look it up

[AnotherPerspective08]

silm, salm, salam

similar words, written as "slm" in Arabic. seems like Shabir Ally is confusing them for the same word.

[Ous114]

Thanks for the comment. My point is that "silm" in this verse does not mean Islam.

Yusuf Ali:O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly.

Why would God ask a person who is already a Mulslim to enter into Islam.

Is God repeating Himself?

[AnotherPerspective08]

now you're confusing Iman and Islam.

[Ous114]

I am not. Iman is a subsector of islam. Moeminoon are followers of the Prophet and they are all Muslims.

[AnotherPerspective08]

someone can be a muslim but not a mo'min. like in this verse: 49:14

someone can be a mo'min who doesn't follow Islam yet. we see that today.

[Ous114]

Remember I said. All Mo'mins are Muslims but not all Muslims are Mo'mins.

الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ

In the Quran refers to the followers of Prophet Mohammad. They believe in God, the last day, and all his messengers. If they dont then they are not Mo'mins.

[AnotherPerspective08]

not all those who believe in God, the last day, all God's messengers....etc follow the pillars of Islam and commandments of God.

[Ous114]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَارَى وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلاَ خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلاَ هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

2:62

[AnotherPerspective08]

you'll always find having belief + doing good deeds in verses talking about the reward. just like in the verse you posted.

belief + deeds

Iman + Islam

basically

May be you're talking about the levels of Iman. Someone who has strong Iman would consequently be a good Muslim. as in using the word Mu'min to refer to a religious person.

but that wasn't the original topic.

it was about the word silm.

[Ous114]

The verses I posted define the word Mo'min. They are the followers of the Prophet as clearly stated in 2:62.

Back to the word silm. If the God calls these people believers (mo'minun), then why would you think the are not Mulsims?

[AnotherPerspective08]

2:62 doesn't define a Mu'min instead it gives the prerequisites of being rewarded. it doesn't say believers get rewarded, it says all can get the reward and it gives the conditions which are belief + good deeds

49:15 gives a definition of Iman but the definition doesn't detail the pillars of Islam. All it shows is that those A'raab from verse 14 are not Mo'minoon although they are Muslimoon

I'll check different dictionaries for the meaning of silm in sha Allah

but I have to go now

peace

[Ous114]

2:62 does define who these people are because it breaks down the classes of people who will get rewarded:

1-Mo'minum (Followers of the Prophet)

2-Jews(followers of Moses)

3-Christians(Followers of Jesus)

4-Sabians

Peace

[papasmurfXXX]

actually those were the ones that were mentioned, it sais the first 4 then it sais "whoever" meaning anyone who worships god when not having their class listed, like some sects of hinduism where i heard that there was a monotheistic hindu sect that worships one supreme lord by a hindu friend and the other hindu gods are not like worthy for worship and must not be worshipped if toy look into it, some hindu scholars support the monotheist sect and abrograte the pagan hindu sects ,a hindu told me

[Ous114]

One more for you (49:15):

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَرْتَابُوا وَجَاهَدُوا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنفُسِهِمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ

[imadhurata]

well some say it is others say it isn't, some believe that 2:180 is a general foundation principle of practice seperate from heritance and hence is unrelated to 4:11, others do, those that do believe it's mansookh

on the evidence i have to go with the former, it's not mansookha, but i haven't studied into it, so maybe i will be convinced otherwise if i do more research.

[imadhurata]

but what is the point of what you said?

is it a suggestion that god is somehow standing in the way through his inherence laws.

look! if a person believe in god and believes god knows best, then why wouldnt he believe that maybe giving money to his 2 sons would be better even if he himself doesn't percieve it so.

that would fall under the category of trusting in the judgement of god, right?

[Ous114]

I am not implying that God is standing in the way or that I would give my money to a school in South Africa and leave my kids to starve, but rather that we have strayed away from the Quran and let man made laws supercede it and that in my opinion is the sad truth.

[imadhurata]

how? when we go to the sources they say what we, me and ozzy, say.

i don't get your point.

it might be the case that a person has a favorite son and gives all the money to him ignoring the others, here the inheritance laws supercide the fathers will........ is that what you are talking about? as far as i know you can give your money to charity on your death bed.

[Ous114]

That is my point. Inheritance laws DO NOT supercede the will as per 4:11.

مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ

The words above mean that if you are worth 100 dollars and you owe debt of 100 dollars, then no inheritance is left and the same thing applies to the will. If your will takes up 100% of your worth then no inheritance is left.

[imadhurata]

who says who can't give charity b4 you die?

and who says you can select a favorite son and bypass the heritance laws because you like one son over the others?

and why in the name of god would YOU think it's a good thing?

do you think rape and murder are good?

are you intoxicated?

[Ous114]

Maybe another example would better explain my point. I think you are misunderstanding my intention here.

In current Islamic law, if I have 2 sons, one with down syndrome and the other normal, then under current inheritance laws they get the same amount. The Quran based on 2:180 and 4:11 is saying that if less than 100% of your worth is spoken for in your will then the inheritance laws come into play. otherwise they dont.

[imadhurata]

well maybe the other without downs need it more, and how come you know nothing about family support, his brother will be put into the care of the other brother, and hence he would get the money............ i still don't get your point..

[imadhurata]

with all due respect, that has to be the most stupid point i've come across.... lets take your point,

example you die, god allocates the money evenly and fairly amoung your relatives. then why when you're alive and you believe in god do you then believe that the split isn't fair? would you say well if i had to split it this would be the best splitting?

[Ous114]

The point is that God ONLY allocates if you dont.  That is what the below words mean:

مِن بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِي بِهَا أَوْ دَيْنٍ

(After payments for the will or debt)

[imadhurata]

no the point is you think you are smarter then god, and god got his laws all wrong, or didn't see your stupid downs example, which turns out to be nonsensical.

anyhow about naasikh and that verse. those that believe it is seperate and hence the said verse isn't mansuukh WILL still follow heritance laws, unlike you who think you have out smarted god.

and as wills are prescribed for in inherence law ayats, those who do believe it is are against a last will and testiment, right?

[Ous114]

Here is the problem. You have something clear from the Quran and you go looking at tafsirs. Who is really following the Quran? You are rejecting the Quran and accepting the interpretations eventhough they are clearly not correct.

[imadhurata]

ous i don't believe that to be true, i you had read tafseer, it doesn't give their understanding but elaborates on the text, giving greater context, everything is back-up with proofs and evidences....... so it's the source you have the issue with.

what i think is that you fear that if the actual meaning in your mind is egregious wrong then quran islam is wrong.

you have a lack of faith in islam and you fear the futher elaboration.

[imadhurata]

why are you seeing things in isolation, that brother without downs will need that money and even if the other one will be allocated with others, he might not even need money.

[imadhurata]

ous btw i'm not saying that the mufsirreen don't mention naasikh, they do, whereever the usuuli scholars have stated a verse as an evidence a tafseeer scholar would state the same, but as an explaination of that verse complimented by the hadiths. in a sense they would state the same.

all i'm saying is that the notion that naasikh was establish by the mufsireen is erronous............. if you want to attributed to a book than al risaalaah is your best bet. thou usuul was formalized by.........

[Kite208]

Your videos are always great.

[imadhurata]

"interpretations passed down to us from the 7th century"

what you talking about, tafseer history begins in a more formal manner from tabari, he himself lived until 923..... later classic writers are even further back, and there IS plenty of anicent manuscripts of their works.

[Ous114]

Sorry, my mistake. I should have added 8th and 9th centuries. I am not questioning the manuscript evidence or their motives. I respect all these jusrists. However, we have tended to rely on them way too much. We have to remember that they are human beings like us and they have made alot of mistakes in their interpretations. I can give you alot of examples of such errors. One of them is above in the video response section.

Peace

[imadhurata]

we? if you understood tafseer and knew how it's written than how can a person depend on it? by merely reading it you find the writer uses a language to convince based on evidence, he himself accepts differences (and even goes as far as presenting that different case, with no bias) and establishes his view based on evidential arguments.

i can't see how an islamical educated person would become tafseer centric.

he will incline towards Quran and Sunnah.

[imadhurata]

imaam abu hanifa and his students b4 shafi'i, so his works were in existences and naasikh can be attributed in a formal manner to abu hanifa.

ofcourse before then it was being taught but informally, in a sense this in itself would be an indirect proof that naasikh and other usuul were part of quran and sunnah.

[IslamResponses]

Great as usual brother, may Allah almighty save you for us :)