eric121 a écrit :
Il n'y avait pas de photocopieuse à l'époque, donc il y a bien une nouvelle écriture.
Toi
[EDIT], et ça ne s'arrange pas avec le temps (il suffit de voir tes arguments). -_-
J'étais en train de te donner les synonymes du mot "ننسخها"
eric121 a écrit :Était-ce à l'identique ?
Si c'était à l'identique, il n'aurait pas réuni 4 personnes et que des jeunes, il parait meme que l'n des 4 n'a pas connu Mahomet.
Si c'était une simple compilation sans réécriture il n'y aurait pas eu de problème de désaccord !!!
Sinon, tu as des preuves que c'était 3 Jeune personnes, et si c'est le cas, comment est-ce supposé prouve que le coran n'est pas identique?
eric121 a écrit :
Cette commission de 4, c'était du pipeau, regarde :
Le calife Omar pas d'accord avec son neveu qui était censé faire partie d'une commission de 4 personnes pour réécrire le Coran ?
Ibn Zubayr a dit : j'ai dit à Othman :"le verset (2:240) a été abrogé par un autre verset, pourquoi tu l'écris ?"
Il répondit : "Laisse, neveu, je ne changerai rien de sa place"
Sahih Bukhari/Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir/XLVII: "Those of you who die leaving wives behind" (2:240)/4262. It is related that Ibn az-Zubayr said, "I said to 'Uthman, '"Those of you who die leaving wives behind" (2:234) in al-Baqara and 'Those of you who die leaving wives behind' (2:240) was abrogated by the other ayat and so why do you write it down?' He said, 'Leave it, O nephew, I will not change any of it from its place.'
L'abrogation de la sourate 2 verset 240?
-Sache qu'il n'existe aucun hadith où le prophète dit qu'un verset abroge un autre, la raison pour laquelle ce hadith fut inventé, c'est parce que les musulmans ne pouvaient pas accepté qu'il existe des contradictions dans le coran, comme c'est le cas dans la bible, alors ils ont inventé cette excuses
Source:
“… According to Razi, it is on this passage, among others, that the great Qur’an-commentator Abu Muslim al-Isfahani based his rejection of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ discussed in my note 87 on 2:106.” (Asad, Message of the Qur’an[ Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], p. 443, fn. 35; source)
Related to the preceding is the sixth problem with this concept.Abrogation is nothing more than an expedient attempt of explaining away the major contradictions within the Qur’an. In fact, Asad himself believed that Muslims may have developed this doctrine due to their inability to satisfactorily harmonize the major discrepancies within their religious text. He writes in his footnote 87 to Q. 2:106 that:
“… The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an -has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ('message') occurring in this context is also used to denote a ‘verse’ of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been ‘abrogated’ by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
WHICH CALLS TO MIND THE IMAGE OF A HUMAN AUTHOR CORRECTING, ON SECOND THOUGHT, THE PROOFS OF HIS MANUSCRIPT, deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been ‘abrogated’. At the root of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’
MAY LIE THE INABILITY OF SOME EARLY COMMENTATORS TO RECONCILE ONE QUR'ANIC PASSAGE WITH ANOTHER; a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been ‘abrogated’. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ as to which, and how many, Qur’an-verses have been affected by it; and furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected…” (Asad, Message of the Qur’an[Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], pp. 22-23, n. 87; source)
Asad correctly points out that abrogation is an indication of human imperfections and weakness. Yet Asad wasn’t the only one who felt this way since the late
Maulana Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya sect also rejected abrogation precisely because it violates the claim of the Qur’an that it is free from errors and discrepancies. Like Asad, Ali acknowledged that Muslims developed this concept because they were confronted with references that conflicted with one another, which they could not satisfactorily explain:
The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Qur'an. A verse is considered to be abrogated when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other.
But the Qur'an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: "Will they not then meditate on the Qur'an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy" (4:82).
[Traduction en française démandée dans ce forum francophone. Merci.]![[Modérateur]](./images/ranks/pic_moderateur.gif "[Modérateur]")
