Timeline for Which sunni scholars deny naskh tilawa (removed verses from the quran)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 1:43 | history | edited | Sassir |
edited tags
|
|
| May 26, 2017 at 9:16 | comment | added | Kilise | @III-AK-III I've edited my question. I don't want to get into an discussion, just an answer of which scholars denied naskh tilawa. One doesn't have to agree with them or think they've reached a high level enough to deny such things. That would be a different question. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 8:58 | history | edited | Kilise | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 140 characters in body; edited title
|
| May 26, 2017 at 8:39 | comment | added | III-AK-III | This is exactly what I meant by not defining criteria for khilaf mo'atbar. Scholarly value is not person-specific, but a person-topic relationship. For example, Ibn Hazm was specialized in jurisprudence, not hadith. This does not mean that Ibn Hazm has no scholarly value, but it means he was not a hadith scholar. Dr. Ali Gomaa studied jurisprudence, not science of Qur'an or hadith. If the question was which Qur'an scholars denied naskh, it would be a different story. | |
| May 26, 2017 at 7:16 | comment | added | Kilise | @III-AK-III Are you saying Ali Gooma has no scholarly value? | |
| May 26, 2017 at 1:03 | comment | added | III-AK-III | This could easily turn into an opinion-based question, unless criteria for khilaf mo'atbar (scholarly differences) are pre-defined, as almost all of the so-called scholars that deny abrogation these days do not rise at all to the level of khilaf mo'atbar, hence their denial has no scholarly value, e.g., the linked video provided in the question. I suggest that you define the criteria for khilaf mo'atbar in your question. | |
| May 25, 2017 at 23:20 | history | edited | Kilise | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| May 25, 2017 at 23:11 | history | asked | Kilise | CC BY-SA 3.0 |