“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i

Before I jump on to the vast literature available on Abrogation, I strongly feel that I should address the issue briefly as a PPK Muslim, based on common sense, logic and knowledge, a path commended to all Muslins all over in our Holy Text for all occasions. One gets a feeling that an issue is carved out when there is none at all and is  followed by a protracted discussion and debate from all sides with no agreeable conclusions. A thing which is natural and expected is picked up for debate and discussion by our jurists (fuqahaa). This is a classical example of a game played in the field of jurisprudence. The Holy Quran was revealed piece by piece over a period of twenty two years. The community kept moving and growing, in the meantime. New problems and situations kept on propping up demanding a shift in the instructions and advice. The legal minds ie the fuqahaa of early Islam could not see this as a logical, legitimate and more or less established procedure. Hence they devised for this process  a “Theory of Abrogation” and coined terms in their legal jargon for this otherwise conventional process of exchange and substitution. In Islamic legal exegesis (tafsir), naskh was developed as a theory to resolve apparently contradictory rulings of Islamic revelation by superseding or canceling the earlier revelation. 

Let me give you an example. Initially, the Muslims faced the Kaaba in their prayers for twelve years in Makkah, according to a report cited by historian al-Tabari and al-Baydawi. (Yes, Muslims did pray in this period, probably not five times). There are other reports that the Holy Prophet prayed in such a way to face both Kaaba and Jerusalem when in Makkah. Lastly, some reports cited by al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari, propound that he turned towards Jerusalem while in Makkah. After migration to Medina the Muslims faced Baitul Maqdas. Once Makkah was conquered, there was a natural urge among them to go back to their original Qibla. The Quran clearly  refers to this feeling even in the psyche of  the Holy Prophet. Hence God Almighty ordered them to face the Ka’baa again after sixteen months stay in Medina. As the scenario changed, so did the recommendations. But the legal minds could not leave it at that. They formulated a “Theory of Abrogation” and devised general rules and regulations for it and applied it in a variety of situations. Once naskh was accepted as a concept, a wide and variety of literature has developed round it producing and using very strange and unusual logic.”

As I said, this is the reading of a PPK (Proud, Practicing, Knowledgeable) Muslim’s mind. Contrast this with a scholar’s mind. The eminent Muslim scholar Mufti Mohammed Shafi does not envisage this route in his classical tafseer Ma’aarif-ul-Quran. He considers these as prerogatives of God Almighty. Here is what he says “for Allah alone knows the wisdom that lies in His choice, and He makes these changes for the good of men. In fact, He always sends another verse or injunction better than, or at least equal to, what He has abrogated. Allah being omnipotent and omniscient, HE possesses the authority to change His commandments as He likes, and He also knows what is good for men at a particular time”. However later on he does add “Making laws and repealing them to promulgate new ones in their stead is a regular and well-known practice in human governments and institutions. …… so, when the situation changes as HE already knew, HE changes the law too, and promulgates a new one which HE had thought of at the very start”.

The ayahs directing Muslims about their Qibla^[3]
were revealed in the month of Rajab or Shaban in the second year Hijri (624 CE), or about 15 or 16 months after the Hijrah. Earlier Muslims were facing Jerusalem during prayers; the Jews did the same, calling it the mizrah. As per the well known story, these verses were revealed during a prayer congregation; the Holy Prophet Muhammad and his followers immediately changed their direction from Jerusalem to Mecca in the middle of the prayer ritual. The location of this event was named Masjid al-Qiblatayn (“The Mosque of the Two Qiblas”).

Apart from the index ayah, there are other ayahs in the Holy Text dealing with possible abrogation^[4]

“When We substitute one revelation for another,- and God knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.”

“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book”.

“And if We so willed, We could indeed take away whatever We have revealed unto thee, and in that (state of need) thou wouldst find none to plead in thy behalf before Us”

The index ayah starts with “For any  آيَةٍ -ayah- that We abrogate…….”. The whole edifice of theory of abrogation depends on the meaning given to the word آيَةٍ. It has been very commonly translated as a “verse”; this is indeed one of its meaning, but not the only one. There are other additional meanings of this term in the Quran like miracle, example, sign and human token of wonders. For an examples of use of these meanings in the Quran please see the footnotes.^[5]

Paradoxically, a careful analysis of this ayah suggests that all these meanings of the word “ayah” fit here but not the commonly used meaning “verse”. 

Dr. Mohammed Asad, along with many other  commentators, suggests in his great tafseer “The Message of Quran” that the term  آيَةٍ here refers to previous revelations. This meaning of the word “ayah”, dismisses  any basis for the theory of abrogation. “There does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been abrogated” he declares. As I have stated earlier there  is no agreement between the various mufasserins as to how many and which ones of the ayahs are affected and to what degree. This is one of the reasons Dr. Asad confidently declares “In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected”. He elaborates

 pointedly “At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation” may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Quranic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been abrogated”.  Abu Muslim al-Isfahani and a few others from among the Mu’tazilah have also denied the actual occurrence of abrogation. On the other hand the eminent Muslim scholar, Mufti Mohammed Shafi, in his celebrated tafseer Ma’aarif-ul-Quran reports “In short, all the authentic and authoritative “Ulemaa”  from the days of the blessed Companions down to our own day, have always affirmed not only the possibility, but also the actual occurrence of abrogation. This has been the position of all the ‘Ulamaa of Deoband too, without any exception.” He adds elsewhere  “This is the only form of abrogation which can occur, and has been occurring in divine injunctions and in divine books. Every new Shari’ah and every new revealed Book has been abrogating many injunctions of the earlier shari’ah and of the earlier Book. Similarly, within the same Shari’ah, too, it has always happened that a certain law was in force for a time, but Divine Wisdom chose to abrogate it and to promulgate another in its place.” He quotes a hadith in his support “”There has never been a prophethood which did not abrogate some injunctions”. According to John Burton, an English clergyman, a theological and classical scholar “No single verse” in the Quran “unequivocally points to the naskh of any other verse”, nor does any “irreproachable” hadith identify any one verse as having either undergone or effected naskh”.  Mohammad Abdu, famous Egyptian Islamic scholar, jurist, theologian and writer (1849-1905) had declared ““the Quran nowhere announced that verse so-and-so is naskh, or that verse such-and-such is Mansukh.” As is borne out by discussions hitherto, a minority of scholars, such as Abū Muslim al-Iṣfahānī (d. 934/1527), have gone so far as to say that abrogation, as a technical concept defined by the mainstream legal tradition, does not actually exist. They employ the same passages to make their case either that naskh takes place between different religions (e.g., Islam in relation to Judaism and Christianity), meaning that God replaces one religion with another, or that sign (āyah) in this verse means “miracle.”

Some prominent mufassirs (exegists) like Maulana Maudoodi and Mufti Mohammed Shafi regard this ayah as a response to the objections and taunts of the Jews and Christians. If the earlier revelations were also from God Almighty why has the Quran changed or rejected them, they exclaimed pointing out that it was impossible that Divine revelation should be erased from human memory. How can God Almighty sent different orders to different peoples. If an ayah needed to be abrogated, means that Quran contained material that was  evil, they argued. Mufti Mohammad Shafi retorts.“The present verse refutes this line of argument, and, in effect, points out that abrogation does not mean replacing good with evil, or vice versa, which should imply the possibility of the presence of evil in divine revelation, but that everything that Allah reveals to His prophets is good, and that what has been abrogated is good as much as what abrogated it”

A very fancy and dramatic definition of abrogation is provided by Nasr et al in their modern tafseer “The Study Quran”. I cannot make much of it but I present it for your perusal: “Naskh (“abrogation”) as a technical term is a key concept in the fully developed form of Islamic jurisprudence, theology, and Quranic commentary, and is a major conceptual tool for understanding the relationship between different commands and prohibitions in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is a crucial concept for understanding how the Quran is actually used as a source of Islamic Law and practice, and thus many of the classical commentators devote considerable attention to this particular verse”.

What is Naskh? (Abrogation). At the outset bear in mind: although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars, it has been widely exploited by non-Muslim writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book. These non-Muslim writers claim that abrogation in fact denotes contradictions inside the Quran, refuting  the divinity of the Quran. However, God Almighty has asserted that HIS Book is impeccable and spotless, free of any contradiction:^[6]
 

“A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail,- from One Who is Wise and Well acquainted (with all things)”

 and

“Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur’an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction!”

As an Islamic term, there is a lack of agreement among scholars on what exactly al-Naskh is? This concept claims that some verses in the Quran have been abrogated and invalidated by other verses. Reportedly “scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references”. The term signifies promulgation of one injunction in place of another. This process may result merely in repeal of a sitting order or replace it with  another. A variation proposes that an injunction is simply forgotten and eroded from the memories of all concerned; “the blessed Companions forget a certain verse altogether”.

One of the many definitions of this term reads: “an exegetical (explaining) theory of the repeal or abolition of a law for divine commands in the Quran and the Hadith, wherein the contradictory verses, within or between these Islamic scriptures, are analyzed (David S. Powers); through Naskh, the superseding verse as well as the superseded verse(s) are determined for the purposes of formulating Sharia.”

The abrogation of Quranic verses, “arguably the greatest lie against the Quran” , was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.

It should be clearly and emphatically pointed out that naskh is restricted ONLY  to dos and don’ts of Shari’ah. It does not cover the fundamentals of doctrine and Imaniyaat like the nature of God or description of the Hereafter. “God has power over all things” is beyond the reach of naskh. Even universally accepted commandments, for example  on murder, theft or adultery and kindness to parents etc. are not subject to naskh. It is a fair assumption that there is consensus among Islamic scholars on this issue.

Which and how many Quranic verses have been abrogated? Truthfully, GOK, God Only Knows. See a tabulated list of ayahs that have been abrogated.^[7]
As a general rule, the Quran has not described any details about abrogation. That there are sharp differences among the mufasserins (exegetes) and fuqahaa (jurists) on this issue is evident from the fact that the assessment of the number of ayahs varies from less than ten to over 500. Neal Robinson, a priest (1929–2009), Archdeacon of Suffolk, England mentions “scholars’ estimation of the number of abrogating verses waxing and then waning over the centuries.” Az-Zuhri, a tabi’i Arab faqih and Muhaddis declared that 42 ayahs had been abrogated. The commentator Ibn al-Jawzī named no less than 247; many other lists exist in between, such as Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s list of 21 instances. The numbers then kept n increasing till the eleventh century, when Ibn Salama put the figure of abrogated verses to 238 and al-Farisi pointed at 248. Lastly, David S. Power came out with a higher number of 500.  Subsequently the trend was reversed: al-Sayuti (d.1505), an Egyptian scholar, historian, sufi and jurist brought the number down to 20 and Shah Wali Allah of Delhi (d.1762) reduced it to 5. This wide variation points to the lack of uniformity in its definition. 

I personally feel horrified by a suggestion offered in the discussion on abrogation viz. whether the Quran can be abrogated by the Sunnah !!! This view cuts across the core  Islamic teachings; nay, it overturns the very foundation of Islam. Or shall I say it wrenches out the very roots of Muslim Faith.  I cannot even think of it. Yet I understand this is the official Shafai view. A diluted version says that a verse of the Quran may be “reinterpreted and more narrowly defined” by sunnah but nobody has the power to abrogate it. Unfortunately, this was an accepted belief in in the fiqh of all the four schools of thought in the ninth century. More recently, however  there is an urge to defend and endorse the absolute validity of Quran. 

There are some other kinds of naskh described which are again in open conflict with the Quran or basic Islamic concepts. Bibi Aisha has reportedly  made a statement  wherein there is naskh both of text and ruling. It states  that there were commands in the Quran relating to suckling that are now neither acted upon nor part of the Quran. Contrast this, with our proud and confident claim that not a letter has changed from the Quran since its inception. A similar attitude is seen in another report attributed to none other than our hero Umer bin Khattab wherein the text has undergone naskh but the ruling remains current. He is supposed to have said a verse commanding stoning was part of the Quran, but now it is not, even though the command of stoning for adultery remains in effect. It is really painful and disheartening to read “many, if not most, jurists” concur on this”. I am happy to note that “there has been considerable difference of opinion about these kinds of naskh”;  as a matter of fact these should be rejected on the face it because they enquire “whether Prophetic practice (Sunnah) can abrogate the Quran or vice versa, and whether the consensus of the learned community (ijmāʿ) can abrogate a ruling from the Quran or a ḥadīth.” These proposals are foolish and frivolous, to say the least and threaten to dislodge the fabric of our Deen.

To summarise this  unnecessary and confusing debate: The Quran does have alterations, cancellations, replacements and amendments of its commands. Why? Because, it was revealed over a period of twenty two years. Hence, it could not be otherwise,  quite obviously. Situations and requirements greatly altered and modified with time demanding new and appropriate measures. A natural process seen over the centuries in various and many enterprises and undertakings of human beings. However the legal minds, the fuqahaa (jurists) of early days of Islam did not or could not conceive it as such. Instead, they envisaged and developed  a full-blown “Theory of Abrogation” with  complete set of categories and classification and demonstrated its application in various situations. Sure enough, in the coming years two opposing camps evolved, seen and heard debating each other. One summarily dismissed the very idea of abrogation. The other claimed it to be overwhelmingly accepted by Islamic scholars.  As you have noted in the text above, both sides—for and against— have heavy weights as advocates for their view. I will vote with the deniers. What about you?