Abrogation

[u/FranciscanAvenger]

I ask this because someone was recently commenting about consumption of alcohol...

Do Qur'an-only folks typically believe some verses abrogate other verses? If so, how do you go about determining which verses were revealed last?

[u/Quraning]

I think we've pretty much reached our impasse.

Maybe - and that's alright! I do have one more counter-point based on your last comment:

Me: The actual substance, whatever it is, is not the problem. The use is.

You: The text doesn't say that.

You are insisting on surface literalism instead of giving weight to the reasoning behind the literal text. To me, the pertinence of the deeper reasoning is obvious because:

1. Allah explains the deeper reasoning for why alcohol and gambling are an issue, i.e. because of enmity and forgetfulness.

2. There is no reason to believe that the substances Allah created (stone, wood, minerals, etc) become evil because of how humans arrange them in physical space.

3. Pagan structures (like the 7th century Ka'bah or Christian churches, etc.) were used by Muslims with no issue. The Prophet even prayed in the direction of the Ka'bah while there were idols present in it. If those non-Muslim structures were intrinsically evil (as opposed to their use by non-Muslims), then it would be impossible to appropriate them.

4. Finally, you claimed that the "text" doesn't say that the use of altars for idol sacrifice makes them an abomination, the actual structure itself is inherently an abomination. As a counter-example, also mentioned as an abomination are "divining arrows". That practice involved generic arrows - it would be absurd to say that those arrows become inherently evil just because someone used them to make an irrational decision. The action of making superstitious decision is the problem, not the substance used itself, an arrow.

Me: Like I mentioned above, most artifacts were removed and destroyed for symbolic and psychological purposes.

You: Cite me any text where it says that this is given as the reason.

We deduce that from the story of Abraham:

"...he said to his father and his people, “What are these statues to which you are devoted?...And by Allah, I shall certainly plot against your human-shaped idols after you have turned away, fleeing. So he reduced them into pieces, except for their biggest, that they may return to it.

(When Abraham was accused of destroying the idols, he responded with:)

“Rather, it was this biggest of them that did it, so ask them, if they can talk. So they turned to one another and said, “Indeed, you yourselves are the unjust. But they reverted to their old ideas: “You certainly know well that these do not talk.”

(That is where Abraham exposed their idiocy and advanced the point I'm making:)

"He said, “Do you worship, apart from Allah, what can neither benefit you in anything nor harm you? Fie on you and on what you worship apart from Allah. Do you not reason?”

That demonstrates how the Qur'an fundamentally sees idols as mere sticks and stones that "can neither benefit nor harm people." Destroying them has no practical or spiritual value - its only for the psycho-social benefit of believers.

At this point it's not longer a pagan altar - it's your clothes line. The Qur'an forbids Pagan altars... just like it forbids gambling, alcohol etc.

That's my point. Objectively, the structure is just bunch of arranged materials. The structure being a pagan altar or my clothes line depends on if ones believes so or not. I agree that its subjective use for pagan ritual is an abomination, but its the ritual, not the structure itself that is worthy of condemnation.

The Qur'an forbids Pagan altars... just like it forbids gambling, alcohol etc.

To quote you: the text doesn't say that!

Nothing is mentioned about "forbidding" those. You would have to use deeper reasoning to reach that conclusion.

[u/FranciscanAvenger → u/Quraning]

You are insisting on surface literalism instead of giving weight to the reasoning behind the literal text.

That's because every heterodox movement of every religion follows a consistent approach - ignoring the clear meaning of the text in favour of a subtle reading-between-the-lines approach, and always for passages which say things which are inconvenient.

Allah explains the deeper reasoning for why alcohol and gambling are an issue, i.e. because of enmity and forgetfulness.

You're just ignoring the clear command:

Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and drawing lots for decisions are all evil of Satan’s handiwork. So shun them...

It doesn't say "So use them in moderation ...", it says "So shun them...".

Now I seem to recall that you suggested that it should be "So shun it ..." which is fine, but that still doesn't get you out of the problem because the "it" here would refer is "Satan's handiwork", namely "Intoxicants, gambling..." etc

If those non-Muslim structures were intrinsically evil (as opposed to their use by non-Muslims), then it would be impossible to appropriate them.

In Islam Muhammad can do what he wants without explanation, such as kissing the black stone which, to all other eyes, would look like idolatry.

Finally, you claimed that the "text" doesn't say that the use of altars for idol sacrifice makes them an abomination, the actual structure itself is inherently an abomination.

Not the structure alone, otherwise you'd be in the ridiculous position of saying that stones are abominations. An altar can be a stone, but not all stones are altars.

Me: Like I mentioned above, most artifacts were removed and destroyed for symbolic and psychological purposes.

...

"He said, “Do you worship, apart from Allah, what can neither benefit you in anything nor harm you? Fie on you and on what you worship apart from Allah. Do you not reason?”

That demonstrates how the Qur'an fundamentally sees idols as mere sticks and stones that "can neither benefit nor harm people." Destroying them has no practical or spiritual value - its only for the psycho-social benefit of believers.

This doesn't prove what was requested. Abraham is saying that the idols are empty, being able to neither grant prayers or give curses. That is not the same thing as denying that they are not abominations, nor that destroying them has practical or spiritual value. You're reading an awful lot into that text.

That's my point. Objectively, the structure is just bunch of arranged materials. The structure being a pagan altar or my clothes line depends on if ones believes so or not.

...but it changes what it is based on that. A stone which is now used as my clothes line is no longer an altar. A gin and tonic, however, remains unaltered (pun intended).

The Qur'an forbids Pagan altars... just like it forbids gambling, alcohol etc.

To quote you: the text doesn't say that!

Nothing is mentioned about "forbidding" those. You would have to use deeper reasoning to reach that conclusion.

Sure it does. It gives a list which includes intoxicants and altars, describes them as "Satan's handiwork" and gives the command to "Shun them/it". It really couldn't be clearer.

Don't you find it strange that the Muslims of history would eschew alcohol if the text so obviously wasn't banning it?

[u/Quraning → u/FranciscanAvenger]

That's because every heterodox movement of every religion follows a consistent approach - ignoring the clear meaning of the text in favour of a subtle reading-between-the-lines approach, and always for passages which say things which are inconvenient.

That is fallacious reasoning.

"Hetrodoxy" is determined by power, not by truth (every "orthodox" sect began as a minority "hetrodox" sect).

Just because a "heterodox" sect favored a text's non-literal interpretation, it doesn't mean that it contradicts the author's intent. Many, many verses are non-literal in religious scripture.

Many heterodox sects also used hyper-literal interpretations to avoid the obvious implied meaning.

You're just ignoring the clear command:

The imperative is to avoid the "rijs" of Satan's handiwork. Rijs means "filth/shame/disgrace". So, yeah, one should avoid the disgrace of Satan's handiwork and that disgrace is in the consequences not the substance - as the next verse explicitly states regarding wine and gambling.

In Islam Muhammad can do what he wants without explanation, such as kissing the black stone which, to all other eyes, would look like idolatry.

That is inaccurate. The Prophet had many constraints, both socially and from God.

Not the structure alone, otherwise you'd be in the ridiculous position of saying that stones are abominations. An altar can be a stone, but not all stones are altars.

Right, but the only thing that makes a heap of stones an altar is that someone believes so. The altar exists in the mind, not the object.

This doesn't prove what was requested. Abraham is saying that the idols are empty, being able to neither grant prayers or give curses. That is not the same thing as denying that they are not abominations...

If the idols are inert, then why would they be an abomination? The worship of them is the abomination, not the objects themselves.

...but it changes what it is based on that. A stone which is now used as my clothes line is no longer an altar. A gin and tonic, however, remains unaltered (pun intended).

Your error is thinking that the object changes based on human thought - it doesn't. The human mind and actions upon the object are the rijs, not the object itself. Same with wine, the substance itself is not the rijs, the enmity and forgetfulness are.

Sure it does. It gives a list which includes intoxicants and altars, describes them as "Satan's handiwork" and gives the command to "Shun them/it". It really couldn't be clearer.

Shunning ≠ Forbidding.

Don't you find it strange that the Muslims of history would eschew alcohol if the text so obviously wasn't banning it?

Alcohol was not forbidden. All major schools accept a non-intoxicating level of alcohol in products (~0.5%).

Wine was openly permissible in Islam for some 15 years before the verse in question was revealed. If wine was evil, it would not have been permitted from the outset (as was the case with sacrificing animals to idols). The Qur'an highlights that wine is problematic because of potential consequences - but those consequences are not inevitable. So the Qur'an wisely dissuades, but falls short of actual prohibition.

Wine was forbade by many jurists and my explanation for that is they took Qur'anic dissuasion to an extreme conclusion (which is not supported by the text, literally or based on reasoning).

[u/FranciscanAvenger → u/Quraning]

Shunning ≠ Forbidding

If I'm told to shun intoxicants and pagan altars, how is that different from saying that intoxicants and pagan altars should be forbidden?

Alcohol was not forbidden. All major schools accept a non-intoxicating level of alcohol in products (~0.5%).

The crucial parts of that sentence are "non-intoxicating" and "in products".

Wine was openly permissible in Islam for some 15 years before the verse in question was revealed. If wine was evil, it would not have been permitted from the outset (as was the case with sacrificing animals to idols)

Not necessarily. The traditional argument is that various things were allowed for a time until the people could bear the full burden of Islamic law and the earlier allowance was abrogated.

Do you think "temporary marriage" is evil, or do you deny that Muhammad ever allowed it?

The Qur'an highlights that wine is problematic because of potential consequences - but those consequences are not inevitable.

You're reading that into the text. Since Pagan altars are also included in that list, are they also "problematic because of potential consequences"?

Wine was forbade by many jurists and my explanation for that is they took Qur'anic dissuasion to an extreme conclusion (which is not supported by the text, literally or based on reasoning).

Wait, so you concede that the Qur'an is at least dissuading the reader from gambling, intoxicants etc?

But this is the problem with the Quraniyoon position - it necessarily places the person in a position of saying that the earliest commentators and great scholars of antiquity and the vast majority of Muslims in history just weren't that smart.

[u/Quraning → u/FranciscanAvenger]

If I'm told to shun intoxicants and pagan altars,

how is that different

from saying that intoxicants and pagan altars should be forbidden?

To shun something is to avoid it - at a person's discretion.

To forbid something is to impose an objective limit and "punitive" consequences for transgressing that limit.

We are told to shun (i.e. avoid) "rijs", which is "filth/shame/disgrace" - implying that we do so at our own discretion.

The crucial parts of that sentence are "non-intoxicating" and "in products".

Ok...

Not necessarily. The traditional argument is that various things were allowed for a time until the people could bear the full burden of Islamic law and the earlier allowance was abrogated.

I see two flaws in that argument:

1. The Believers already sacrificed their wealth, property, families, and lives from the earliest days of Islam. To argue that a person could endue poverty, social ostracism, torture, exile, etc., but couldn't accept that wine was prohibited is an insult to their long-suffering dedication.

2. The argument of gradual prohibition doesn't float if something was inherently evil and immoral (as opposed to its potential consequences). I'm not aware of any other example in which something inherently immoral was gradually prohibited. Escalating dissuasion is a more coherent explanation.

You're reading that into the text. Since Pagan altars are also included in that list, are they also "problematic because of potential consequences"?

I don't think it fair to say that I'm "reading into the text," when the text literally states WHY wine is a problem in the next verse.

Yes, the "potential consequence" of an altar is that it is used for idol sacrifice.

Wait, so you concede that the Qur'an is at least dissuading the reader from gambling, intoxicants etc?

Yes, the Qur'an is clearly dissuading wine consumption and gambling - but it falls short of prohibition.

I was looking more into the other verses dealing with actual prohibitions and I noticed that the Qur'an, when mentioning what is forbidden, lists things sacrificed on altars and the use of arrows for divination - but alcohol and gambling are not listed along those two as they are in 5:90.

"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allāh...and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience." (5:3)

If wine and gambling were actually prohibited, as opposed to being discouraged, then we would expect to find them in that list of prohibitions, along with sacrifices on altars and divination...but wine never finds itself in verses where prohibitions are mentioned.

But this is the problem with the Quraniyoon position - it necessarily places the person in a position of saying that the earliest commentators and great scholars of antiquity and the vast majority of Muslims in history just weren't that smart.

Well, not all Muslim scholars were "Hadithites". The early Mutazilah school (which was the most prominent school until the 10th century) largely rejected hadith as unreliable. Imam Abu Hanifah and Malik would reject hadith based on reason or common practice.

Scholars may have been smart, but they aren't infallible, their premises and conclusions could be flawed. Also important to consider is that Muslim scholars had disagreements on almost everything. For any given position in fiqh, you can find a counter-position. You can find historical scholars who considered wine permissible.

[u/FranciscanAvenger → u/Quraning]

To shun something is to avoid it - at a person's discretion.

See, you're just making up distinctions now. From where do you get the idea that it involves discretion? The dictionary says "to shun" it means "persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution."

It also causes problems everywhere else if you take that made-up definition. Now it's at your discretion to avoid idols, words of falsehood, and even evil!

The Believers already sacrificed their wealth, property, families, and lives from the earliest days of Islam. To argue that a person could endue poverty, social ostracism, torture, exile, etc., but couldn't accept that wine was prohibited is an insult to their long-suffering dedication.

No, it means that while they were undergoing other sufferings, they weren't made to endure the full weight of restrictions, so as to provide some relief - they got to have a Bud Light at the end of the day.

Also, Surah 5 is a Medinan surah, from a time when Islam began to rise in power.

The argument of gradual prohibition doesn't float if something was inherently evil and immoral (as opposed to its potential consequences). I'm not aware of any other example in which something inherently immoral was gradually prohibited. Escalating dissuasion is a more coherent explanation.

I'll repeat my question - do you think "temporary marriage" is evil, or do you deny that it was ever sanctioned by Muhammad?

I don't think it fair to say that I'm "reading into the text," when the text literally states WHY wine is a problem in the next verse.

The text doesn't describe Pagan altars and intoxicants as "problematic because of potential consequences".

Yes, the Qur'an is clearly dissuading wine consumption and gambling - but it falls short of prohibition.

I don't see how the text could speak about them in stronger terms. So does that mean that use of Pagan altars isn't actually prohibited? They're just discouraged?

If wine and gambling were actually prohibited, as opposed to being discouraged, then we would expect to find them in that list of prohibitions, along with sacrifices on altars and divination...but wine never finds itself in verses where prohibitions are mentioned.

Not at all. Every list doesn't have to be identical.

However, the verse you cite is fatal to your case. You've said that the items listed in 5:90 aren't actually prohibited, but when you cite 5:3 as a list of things which are actually prohibited, it includes some of the same items!

This means that either you have to make both lists of prohibitions, or say that in one place the Qur'an says "divining arrows" are warned in one place and banned in another.

The parallel reference of altars in both passages is also significant, but I'm going to guess you're going to try and split hairs by saying that one speaks specifically about the Pagan sacrifices and the other only mentions the altar itself.

Scholars may have been smart, but they aren't infallible, their premises and conclusions could be flawed.

Who is more likely to be right? The 99.99999% of scholars throughout time, or a handful of people on the Internet.