Quran and Abrogation

[P.I.]

:salam2:

A member of this forum suggested that I post this question here, in relation to a discussion of Quran and abrogation that has been taking place on another board.

Do you know of examples of abrogated-abrogating verses (per credible sources) that are not on following list? If so, please post them together with the reference.

33:52 abrogates 33:50

2:240 abrogates 2:234

8:66 abrogates 8:65

3:85 abrogates 2:62

2:185 abrogates 2:184

73:20 abrogates 73:1-4

5:90 abrogates 2:219

5:90 abrogates 4:43

Thank you.

 

[Sabra]

Peace With You

Where exactly do you see this as abrogating? Ex. 8.65 and 8.66 in 8.66 Allah(swt) has said "But (even then) after weakness in them, if there are a hundred of you, steadfast (patient and persevering) persons, they will defeat
two hundred of the disbelievers."

There is no abrogation in the Quran. :astag:

Definition abrogate: to abolish or annul, esp. by authority. Reference: American Heritage Dictionary

Peace Sabra

 

[Sabra]

Peace

2.62 and 3.85 Allah(swt) is saying the same thing, anyone that submits to the will of Allah(swt), and does not partner anything or anybody with Him(swt), shall have their reward with Allah(swt).

Peace

 

[P.I.]

Where exactly do you see this as abrogating?

I don't, but others do. This is the crux of the discussion I referred to. I was just trying to complete the list of verses that were considered abrogated by different scholars based on credible sources in order to keep that discussion focused. There seems to be more knowledgeable people here who may be familiar with the rest of the verses and the proper references.

 

[P.I.]

Welcome to this great forum, P.I. Hope to hear from you often.
I share Sabra's conviction that there is no abrogation in the Quran. I'm glad you feel the same way. It makes no sense to me that God would deliberately leave verses in the Quran that are no longer valid. What possible pupose would that serve?

Thank you kindly.

I am glad to hear these opinions here, as I am almost a lone voice for that position on the other board.

Having said that, I would be very interested in hearing the arguments that people with different opinions have. We can all learn from well articulated points of view.

To be methodical in such a discussion, it will be great if people who are familiar with the specific cases of claimed abrogated-abrogating verses per credible sources can share their information with us. The list in the OP was gathered from the inputs of different posters on the other board.

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

I ask you all... Are you scholars or are you laymen (me included)? I hope we can all agree that we are indeed laymen. So how is it for us to understand the Qur'aan using our intellects, WITHOUT referring back to the Sunnah or the people of knowledge?! Allaah says,

“Whatever Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allaah is able to do all things?”[al-Baqarah 2:106]​

Ibn Kathir whose exegis of the Qur'aan is considered as the most reliable by the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah said in explaing an ayah in Surah Nisaa,

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way."[al-Nisa’ 4:15]​

"At the beginning of Islam, the ruling concerning a woman who was proven guilty of adultery was that she was to be detained in a house and not allowed to come out until she died. So the phrase ‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness’ refers to adultery. ‘Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way’ - the ‘other way’ that Allah made for them was the abrogation of this. Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘This was the ruling until Allah revealed Surat al-Nur, then this punishment was abrogated and replaced with whipping or stoning.’ Something similar was reported from ‘Ikrimah, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan, ‘Ataa’ al-Khurasani, Abu Saalih, Qutaadah, Zayd ibn Aslam and al-Dahhak, stating that this is abrogated, and this is agreed upon.

I ask you to stop giving your own opinions and seek facts. Allaah mentions abrogation clearly in his book, as do the people of knowledge.

Wa`alaykum us-salaam

 

[P.I.]

I ask you all... Are you scholars

No, we are not and we don't claim to be. We are discussing abrogation and exploring what the scholars said. Different scholars have different opinions about abrogation, and we are discussing their reasoning. That's the crux of what's happening on the other board.

I will appreciate any other examples of potentially abrogated verses that you know of together with the scholarly reference for the abrogation case, so we can add it to the above list. Thank you.

 

[Sabra]

I ask you all... Are you scholars or are you laymen (me included)? I hope we can all agree that we are indeed laymen. So how is it for us to understand the Qur'aan using our intellects, WITHOUT referring back to the Sunnah or the people of knowledge?! Allaah says,

“Whatever Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allaah is able to do all things?”[al-Baqarah 2:106]

Assalamu alaykum warahmatullah,

Al-Kashmiri, thank you for your advice and input. I am very sorry for my statement about abrogation in the Quran. I have asked Allah(swt) to forgive
me for anything I have said wrong out of my own ignorance. In my case, I am not completely fluent in Arabic, although I am studying the language and InshAllah one day I will be. In the translation of the Quran that I read frequently, Ayat 2.106 is translated as " change or cause to be forgotten" the word abrogate is not used. The meaning of abrogate is to abolish or annul, not change. So I think you can see where there could be some confusion. As to the verses that P.I. has questioned I do not interpret abrogation. It is more of similarity in some of the Ayats or as in 33.50 to
33.52, a continuance of the meaning. Again I ask Allah(swt) to forgive me,
due to my own ignorance. I referred to the Quran that I have with Arabic script translated into english, and in Ayat 2.106 the translation used is "abrogate or cause to be forgotten". I have referred to the footnotes from the commentator: "What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that Allah's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammed. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation.In 3.7: We are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are clear (and of established meanings), and others are not entirely clear, and it is mischievous to treat the verses that are not entirely clear and to follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as 2.115 as if it were abrogated by 2.144 about the Qibla."

"There may be express abrogation, or there may be "causing or permitting to forget." This does not mean that eternal principles change. It is only a sign of Allah's infinite Power that His creation should take so many forms and shapes not only in the material world but in the world of man's thought and expression." Reference: THE HOLY QUR-AN English translation of the meanings and Commentary, Al-Madinah, Al- Munawarah in coordination with the General Presidency of the Departments of Islamic Researches, Ifta Call and Guidance. This explanation makes complete sense to me, as the Quran, always has. I am continually striving for knowledge in Islam, if you could provide me with anymore info on this subject, more than this, it would be greatly appreciated.

Salams, Sabra

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

wa`alaykum us-salaam.

May Allaah forgive us all when we err.

Yeah there can be confusion like that. The way to remove such confusion is to study arabic lol. Inshaa Allaah you and I will be better ground in the `Arabic language. The other way to help understand the matter is of course, through tafseer. When I was reading Tafsir Ibn Kathir, I read the tafseer of ayah 106 in Surat ul-Baqarah. The word used for 'abrogation' in arabic is 'nasakh' (nansakh in the ayah due to its context), and the explainers of the Qur'aan have used words that render into English such as 'abrogate', 'erase' and have said as you rightfully pointed out "We keep words, but change the meaning". This is what the well know explainers of the Qur'aan have said, refer back to the tafseer of the ayah.

As for the word naskh, Hans Wehr has defined it's English/German equivalent to being, "abrogation, abolition, cancellation, invalidation" etc as well as "to delete, to abolish, to abrogate". Maa shaa Allaah, every English-speaking student of `Arabic should have a dictionary like Hans Wehr.

We can be choicy with words, but the concept/meaning is the same. Talking of tafseer, today is the day I read and study tafseer, better get to it! Hope it helps, sorry if I seem a bit harsh at times and please forgive me if I upset or offend any of you.

Wa`alaykum us-salaam warahmatullah.

 

[P.I.]

in Ayat 2.106 the translation used is "abrogate or cause to be forgotten". I have referred to the footnotes from the commentator: "What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means that Allah's Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammed. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation.In 3.7: We are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are clear (and of established meanings), and others are not entirely clear, and it is mischievous to treat the verses that are not entirely clear and to follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as 2.115 as if it were abrogated by 2.144 about the Qibla."

"There may be express abrogation, or there may be "causing or permitting to forget." This does not mean that eternal principles change. It is only a sign of Allah's infinite Power that His creation should take so many forms and shapes not only in the material world but in the world of man's thought and expression." Reference: THE HOLY QUR-AN English translation of the meanings and Commentary, Al-Madinah, Al- Munawarah in coordination with the General Presidency of the Departments of Islamic Researches, Ifta Call and Guidance.

Thank you for the valuable information. I do not see any conflict so far. The question raised in the OP was about the claims of abrogated verses that survived in the text in the Quran (as opposed to not being included in it in the first place). In the other discussion, more than one reference was given confirming that the Prophet (PBUH) did not designate any specific verse in the text of the Quran as abrogated. This led to looking at each claim of an abrogated verse, case by case, to evaluate the reasoning behind the abrogation claim that is based on apparent conflict. We ran out of cases there, so I thought the knowledgeable people here may know of some more cases.

 

[P.I.]

On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as 2.115 as if it were abrogated by 2.144 about the Qibla."

The case for abrogation of verse 2:115 is pretty weak. Here is a translation of 2:115 and of 2:144 (the verse that is claimed to abrogate it):

"And to God belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of God. Indeed, God is all-encompassing and knowing." (2:115)

"We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Mohammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah (prayer direction) with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram (the Grand Mosque in Mecca). And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it. Indeed, those who have been given the scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what they do." (2:144)

The "case" for abrogation is that verse 2:144 fixed the qibla direction to al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca, while verse 2:115 seems to allow all directions. Well, verse 2:115 does not address the qibla direction in the first place. It states that God is present everywhere. This is a statement of fact, not a command related to the qibla direction or anything else.

Moreover, a common interpretation of 2:115 is that it justifies (rather than contradicts) the command in 2:144. The qibla direction had been towards the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem before (though that had not been decreed through a verse in the Quran, so there is no abrogated verse in that regard either), and the change to Mecca caused the usual enemies of Islam to raise doubts about the religion because of this change, so verse 2:115 came to make it clear that fixing one qibla direction or another has nothing to do with a physical location for God. It has to do with obeying a command from God. Following this command proved over time to be one of the most notable symbols of unity and belonging among the Moslems all over the world.

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

Wa`alaykum salaam.

Anyone of ahl ul-`ilm will agree that although the Qur'aan is to be reflected upon by everyone, then it is to be understood not according to the desires but according to what has been reported. So I can't just go and start making claims which do nor confirm with the Qur'aan and Sunnah about the Qur'aan, can I? In fact I believe Imaam Al-`Izz Al-Hanafi, rahimahullaah in his explanation of the classical book `Aqeedah ut-Tawhaawiyyah mentions how people go astray due to them applying their intellects on matters, verses before understanding them properly.

I didn't translate the verse rather I used a reliable "translation". However, in the many translations I have, this is the word that has been used. The meaning of ayah is well known and verse and sign are both valid translations. And if it does refer to sign then why did the salaf say it means, "We keep the words, but change the meanings"!!! Check any reputable tafseer on the subject inshaa Allaah. The matter will be clear.

Please lets not start going into tedious discussions about what means what in English as no translation perfectly reflects the true meanings of the Qur'aan. But since when did 'maa' ما mean 'if', it means 'what' amongst other meanings. The word 'maa' ما has 6 possibilities in the language, and the equivalent to 'if' I have not seen. Please also, when you make a claim llike this, explain why, because the most obvious translation for one who understands just some arabic is what I quoted from the tafseer. So again I did not translate so please don't assume that as I made clear that I used Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Jazaak Allaah khayr. I don't know of any `Aalim of sound `Aqeedah rejecting what we term as 'abrogation'.

 

[P.I.]

Check any reputable tafseer on the subject inshaa Allaah. The matter will be clear.

Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing here: You are of the opinion that there are verses in the text of the Quran that are abrogated (as opposed to verses that never made it to the text after they were abrogated). Is this correct?

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

I am of the opinion that abrogation is in the Qur'aan, like in the example I gave on the first page fo the thread. And I'm pretty sure that I saw in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, a statement about a verse that was totally removed from the Qur'aan. However until I can find it I wish not to say what I believe as we should believe in that which is certain and not that which is doubtful. In fact if you do know of any such verses as explained by some `Ullema, then please let me know via this thread.

Jazaak Allah khayr.

More information can be found on this lecture here by Dr. Saleh as-Saleh.

 

[P.I.]

In fact if you do know of any such verses as explained by some `Ullema, then please let me know via this thread.

I will do that inshaallah. The verses and their discussion were posted as part of the discussion I mentioned.

More information can be found on this lecture here

Thank you, brother. All credible references about the subject are appreciated.

 

[P.I.]

I am of the opinion that abrogation is in the Qur'aan, like in the example I gave on the first page fo the thread.

Allow me to discuss this example. I hope this is taken in the spirit it is meant, as an honest discussion where opinions can differ but without any disrespect.

Ibn Kathir whose exegis of the Qur'aan is considered as the most reliable by the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah said in explaing an ayah in Surah Nisaa,

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way."[al-Nisa' 4:15]​

"At the beginning of Islam, the ruling concerning a woman who was proven guilty of adultery was that she was to be detained in a house and not allowed to come out until she died. So the phrase `If any of your women are guilty of lewdness' refers to adultery. `Take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way' - the `other way' that Allah made for them was the abrogation of this. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: `This was the ruling until Allah revealed Surat al-Nur, then this punishment was abrogated and replaced with whipping or stoning.' Something similar was reported from 'Ikrimah, Said ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan, 'Ataa' al-Khurasani, Abu Saalih, Qutaadah, Zayd ibn Aslam and al-Dahhak, stating that this is abrogated, and this is agreed upon.

I understand the reasoning, but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion.

Verse 4:15 is self delimiting. By that I mean that the verse itself puts a time limit on its own ruling ("..until death claims them, or God ordains for them some other way.."). In other words, when the new verse was revealed, the first verse was not contradicted but rather fulfilled. There is no conflict that needs to be resolved by having one of the verses go away.

I don't want us to sound like we are splitting hair here, so let me pin down the essence of this. If naskh (abrogation) had never been mentioned in the Quran or the sunna, people would have had no problem accepting the above two verses without any conflict, so I am wary that abrogation is being invoked unnecessarily. For there to be true abrogation, there has to be a conflict that cannot be resolved without tagging one of the verses as 'no longer valid'. This is simply not the case here.

Just my humble opinion, and God knows best.

 

[P.I.]

Stoning verse in the Torah?

More information can be found on this lecture here by Dr. Saleh as-Saleh.

I have been listening to this lecture (thank you for the reference, brother Al-Kashmiri). In the part that I have already covered, Dr. as-Saleh was discussing the stoning verse as an example of abrogation (of text but not of ruling). However, the story that he gave to substantiate this claim was about the Prophet (PBUH) dealing with the Jews in Madinah, and Dr. as-Saleh was expressly talking about the stoning verse in the Torah and that the punishment was administered to Jews. Could anybody shed light on this?

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

Sorry akhi, I haven't listened to it fully myself yet. So I don't think I reached that bit. As for abrogation, then sorry I dont see the point on the verse in Surah An-Nisaa, because althought the atonement is death, the ruling did change from being confined in the houses till death, to being stoned on confession providing that the adultress isn't pregnant.

Allaah knows best but the sahaabah clearly made mention of Naskh.

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

Baarak Allaah feek, but how can we refute that which the sahaabah have conveyed to us? On another note, can you at least name some of the shuyookh and more importantly, some of the salaf who didn't hold abrogation? To be honest I'm more concerned with the statements of those who preceded us, not the contemporary shuyookh.

 

[P.I.]

how can we refute that which the sahaabah have conveyed to us?

Brother Al-Kashmiri:

According to the discussion on the other board, the Prophet (PBUH) never said that any specific verse in the text of the Quran is abrogated. Had he said that, it would be the end of the discussion then and there. What do you mean by "which the sahaabah have conveyed to us"?