booke

46chapter onethat were revealed to prophets before him (i.e., before al-Êm§n).MuÈammad (ß) sealed (or put an end to) this successive, continuousabrogation whereby each new message abrogated the previous, olderones. 41The following explanations are intended to clarify the nature ofthe universal ethical laws of al-isl§m which are shared but not exclusivelyembodied by al-Êm§n:1. These ethical guidelines are meant to restrain human behaviour.One may call them our inner conscience ( al-·amÊr), something weattain through education.2. They are essential, innate moral values that exist only within ourhuman consciousness. One can easily transgress ethical rules andviolate moral injunctions because they are, insofar as they do notobjectively exist, inherently weak. Therefore, every civilized societyis compelled to firmly establish them as social rules by way ofreward and sanction. Those who dare to undermine these valuesby reckless, unsocial behaviour must be prosecuted withoutmercy.3. In principle, these guidelines do not need to be explained to peoplenor should they be imposed upon people by force, because theyare part of a human’s innate disposition, and people thereforeabsorb these moral values naturally and instinctively. Thus, sincerityand honesty are natural virtues, while fraud and deceit are41This is a very novel understanding of the legal concept of naskh. Technically,fiqh literature allows four types of abrogations: 1) a qur"anic ruling abrogates anotherqur"anic ruling; 2) a qur"anic ruling abrogates a ÈadÊth; 3) a ÈadÊth of the Propheticaltradition abrogates a qur"anic ruling; and 4) a ÈadÊth abrogates another ÈadÊth. As fortypes 2 and 3, MS would maintain that a qur"anic ruling always abrogates a ÈadÊthof the Prophetical tradition (if it contradicts the qur"anic ruling) but that a ÈadÊthcan never abrogate a qur"anic ruling (see MuÈammad Zayd, al-Naskh fi’l-qur"§n(Cairo, n.p., 1963), 1–6; 82–84; Sha#b§n MuÈammad Ism§#Êl, Naíariyy§t fi’l-shar§"i#al-sa m§wÊya (Cairo, n.p., 1977), 99–171). As for type 1, the fiqh rule is that a laterrevealed qur"anic ruling abrogates an earlier revealed ruling. The criterion is, hence,the time of their revelation between 610 and 632. This is not the criteria which MSapplies. It is, rather, the type of messengerhood for which historically a ruling wasrevealed (i.e., for Moses, Jesus, or MuÈammad). A historically later-revealed rulingabrogates historically earlier-revealed rulings. It is not the chronology of revelationbetween 622 and 632 that counts but the chronology of messengerhoods betweenseveral centuries BD and the seventh century AD., i.e., between the prophet Noahand the Prophet MuÈammad. MS is not concerned with the fourth type. See, for anequally critical view of the classical concept of naskh, AÈmad \ij§zÊ al-Saqq§, L§naskh fi’l-qur"§n (Cairo: D§r al-fikr al-#arabÊ, 1978).