Abrogation?

rami wrote: This is typical of what i was saying beffore about the dumbing down of islam and every indavidual thinking they can deduce there own fatwas from ahadith and how they think IT is more reliable.

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Chrysalis wrote: And that is where I disagree with you yet again, that Islam is not a clerical religion

I don't think you understand what that original argument was about, it was referring to monks and priests forgiving the sins of man on behalf of Allah not the criticism of scholarship itself which is what you seem to be doing.

- so complicated that we need to 'blindly' follow what ordinary, error-prone individuals say.

you are also using this argument in the wrong manner, Allah himself in the Quran says if you dont know ask the people of knowledge [meaning there wont be a shortage of uneducated individuals], the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam] condemned the man who made up his own rulings without first asking. following the basics of islam is easy trying to reach the heights of knowledge is not...there is a reason why the door to ijtihad was closed and it wasn't becouse islam was easy.

dont confuse the subject matter.

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.

is this the norm or the exception, please be realistic.

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.

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

Ron are you asking for the Islamic position or any position on the subject?

You also asked a general question about whether or not it existed, this has been answered clearly. If you want to now discuss which verse abrogated what then that subject matter is very complicated and beyond you or me or Dr Zakir Naik since he hasnt even studied the islamic science and is basing his opinion of generalities rather than actual research.

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

I agree with him, the Quran does not contain contradictions. I don't agree with some of his explanation of why since some contain flaws in logic which i wont point out to avoid adding fuel to the debate over the particulars of the issue. As i said a few posts back there is an issue with using the word "abrogation" to define what naskh wa mansookh mean in the islamic legal sciences since it carries with it its own english/western/modern baggage if you like and that isnt in line with the arabic so you cant formulate or extrapolate any in depth arugements against the quran based on this word.

Its interesting that the question begins with Muslims believe in the theory of abrogation and no where in the article does he deny this but simply elaborates on how it does not contain contradictions.

He only touches lightly on what the madhabs are reffering to by "naskh wa mansukh". If you have the capacity to see the subtle flaws in some of his arguments then i will see what i can explain if not accept it as is its well written.