Command, Prohibitions and Nask. Command (Amr) As a verbal demand to do something from a position of...
-
Upload
ann-goodman -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Command, Prohibitions and Nask. Command (Amr) As a verbal demand to do something from a position of...
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]
• 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,
i. two evidences are of equal strength,
ii. they are present in 2 separate texts,
iii. there is genuine conflict which can not be reconciled, and
iv. 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.