- Bliv medlem
-
Du er ikke logget ind
Log ind Opret dig
Du er ikke logget ind
Beskrivelse
The teaching of abrogation is a key part of exegesis. Militant ulama assert that a person that is not well-versed in the principle of abrogation is not equipped to speak about revelation. But there is no agreement on the number of verse that were allegedly "abrogated." Present-day jurists reject the teaching of abrogation as utterly alien to the teaching of revelation. Moreover, the teaching of abrogation suggests that Allah "changed" his words, after informing us that we will never find a change in His words. The teaching of abrogation also suggests that Allah did not preserve the Reminder as He promised. The teaching also assumes that the Book of Allah, which presents itself as "coherent" and "free of inconsistencies," in fact features "contradictions." Militant ulama assert that a person who disbelieves in abrogation left the fold of Islam and accordingly must be killed. The teaching of abrogation requires reconsideration for several reasons. The teaching of abrogation is based neither in revelation nor tradition. Recourse to this teaching corrupted the knowledge of revelation. The teaching of abrogation provided a rendition of the religion of reconciliation that would justify unlawful wars of aggression against disbelievers, known as jihad al-talab, a sixth pillar of Islam, waged for the purpose of territorial expansion. In reality, hawkish rulers were propelled by greed for the booty plundered in unlawful wars. The teaching of abrogation paved the way for extreme renditions of the teaching of Islam, not excluding those peddled by terrorists. The reinterpretation of Islam as a manifesto of war was enabled by the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence, by hawkish ulama working for hawkish rulers rather than Allah. In a brazen defiance of the Book of Allah, rulers embarked on the "propagation" of Islam by the sword. Waging unlawful wars of aggression triggered pushback. The umma began to suffer setbacks. For "Allah does not love aggressors." And "Allah does not guide wrongdoers." These events transpired during the transition to hereditary rule. The alleged "abrogation" of the verses that teach reconciliation by verses of the sword, transformed Islam into political Islam. Hawkish ulama transformed the teaching of revelation into an instrument of repression by weaponizing exegesis and jurisprudence. Embracing the teaching of abrogation also requires Muslims to stop believing in all verses allegedly "abrogated" by related verses. To cease believing in the verses of Allah is to fall into kufr. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation, buttressed by recourse to militant traditions, enabled militant ulama to transform Islam into its reverse: a religion of war rather than a religion of reconciliation. This requires attention. The traditions used to buttress the case for waging unlawful wars of aggression included the tradition in which the prophet allegedly remarked that "the blood of the kafir is halal for the believer." According to a different tradition used to justify unprovoked wars of aggression, the prophet reportedly declared that, "I was commanded to fight mankind until they all say that the is no god but Allah." Both traditions defy the Book of Allah. Accordingly, they must be rejected unambiguously. The backlash against unlawful wars of aggression triggered the fall of the empire. The transformation of the religion of reconciliation into a "religion of war" was assisted by the repression of reason. The repression of reason enabled endorsing the perception that tradition is revelation. This was required to justify replacing parts of revelation with traditions. The reports of persons akin to hearsay were permitted to "abrogate" revealed rulings. In this way, the repression of reason resulted in anomalies in the sharia. For punishments derived from the traditions differ from the punishments, if any, prescribed in revelation.
