110 likes | 263 Vues
Command, Prohibitions and Nask . Command ( Amr ). As a verbal demand to do something from a position of superiority to an inferior. Use of a simple past tense in Arabic may indicate command to do something [2:178] Form of moral condemnation [2:189]
E N D
Command (Amr) • As a verbal demand to do something from a position of superiority to an inferior. • Use of a simple past tense in Arabic may indicate command to do something [2:178] • Form of moral condemnation [2:189] • As a promise of reward or punishment [4:13-14]
According to the majority, command implies obligation unless there are clues to suggest otherwise. • Command (Amr) may sometimes mean permissibility [7:31]. • May convey a recommendation in some cases [2:282].
May indicate threat, i.e., advise to desist from doing a particular thing [24:33]. • May imply supplication or prayer [2:286]. • It mostly means obligation (Farz or Wazib, depending on whether the text and meaning both are Qati or not.)
Prohibition (Nahy) • Opposite of command. • A demand to avoid doing of something. • May occur in the form of - statement [2:221] - an order not to do something [62:9; 22:30]
May convey - Total prohibition (tahrim ) or - Guidance (irshad) or - Reprimand (tadib). • May imply reprehension [5:87] • Conveys moral guidance [5:104] Majority hold that Nahy primarily implies Tahrim
If prohibition is conditional, its applicable where condition is present [60:10] • When a prohibition succeeds a command, it conveys Tahrim (illegality)
Explicit (Sarih) injunctions (whether Amr or Nahy) require total compliance • Spirit of the Law should also be kept in view, not only letters [62:9] • Implicit injunctions, unless made explicit elsewhere, can be understood by scholars and they may differ therein
Naskh (Abrogation) • Defined as the suspension or replacement of one Shariah ruling by another • Naskh operates only in law, not in beliefs
Naskh operates only when, • two evidences are of equal strength, • they are present in 2 separate texts, • there is genuine conflict which can not be reconciled, and • the two texts are of two timeframe (one is later to the other).
Some scholars don’t agree that there is abrogation in the Quran • For details, study the text book by H. Kamali.