Abrogation in the Qur’an

[Saad]

Abrogation in the Qur’an (http://deoband.org/2010/11/quran/sciences-of-the-quran/abrogation-in-the-quran/)

One of the difficulties in the science of Qur’anic commentary is to know which are the abrogating verses and which are the abrogated ones. This subject has been discussed at length with considerable disagreement [among Muslim scholars]. One of the main reasons behind the difficulty of this subject is the difference of opinion between the early and later scholars about the technical meaning of the word naskh ‘abrogation’.

Read the entire article... (http://deoband.org/2010/11/quran/sciences-of-the-quran/abrogation-in-the-quran/)

[Taliban1]

very interesting explanation.

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

The article has been updated and the following note was added:

Note:

[Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi states ... that abrogation can only be ascertained in five verses, according to the meaning taken by the later scholars. He offers an explanation for the remaining fifteen verses that were considered abrogated by Jalal al-Din Suyuti and others, and demonstrates why those verses are not in fact abrogated.

For example he writes that the verse "As for those with whom you have made a pledge, give them their shares. Surely, Allah is Witness over everything" (4:33), is said to have been abrogated by the verse "As for the womb-relatives, they are closer to one another according to the Book of Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of everything" (8:75). He comments, "Here I must state that the verse apparently means that the inheritance is intended for the clients (mawali), while doing good and maintaining connection are meant for the master of clientship. As such, there is no abrogation here."

On another verse, he comments, "'The adulterer shall not marry save an adulterous or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers' (24:3), is taken as abrogated by the verse 'Arrange the marriage of the spouseless among you, and the capable from among your bondmen and bondwomen' (24:32)". He then goes on to say, "I am to state that Imam Ahmad has followed the outward meaning of the verse, while its meaning according to other scholars is that the doer of a great sin is not fit but for the adulteress or that it is not desirable to take the adulteress in marriage. The words of the verse ('All that is forbidden unto believers') is a hint toward adultery and polytheism. Hence, there is no abrogation here."

Following are the five verses that are considered abrogated by Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi: (1) Al-Anfal 65 by Al-Anfal 66; (2) Al-Mujadilah 12 by Al-Mujadilah 13; (3) Al-Baqarah 180 by Al-Nisa' 11; (4) Al-Ahzab 50 by Al-Ahzab 52; (5) Al-Muzzammil 1 by Al-Muzzammil 20.

However, Mufti Sa'id Ahmad Palanpuri writes while quoting Mawlana 'Ubaydullah Sindhi, "Thus, according to this term, Shah Sahib sees no verse of the Qur'an as abrogated. But it should be noted that the statements of Shah Waliullah in this regard is wise; in view of the condition of people, he attempted to gradually explain this matter to them."

Mufti Palanpuri goes on to say, "'Allamah Sindhi (may Allah have mercy on him) wants to say that no verse, according to Shah Waliullah, is abrogated. But had he expressed this opinion all of a sudden, it would not have been acceptable to the people. Therefore, he wanted to take people gradually to the concept that the Qur'an underwent a process of abrogation, but there is no verse in the present Qur'an which is altogether abrogated."[1] (Sharh al-Fawz al-Kabir, p.275)]

http://deoband.org/2010/11/quran/sciences-of-the-quran/abrogation-in-the-quran/

[umar_italy]

:ws:


Note:

[Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi states ... that abrogation can only be ascertained in five verses, according to the meaning taken by early scholars. He offers an explanation for the remaining fifteen verses that were considered abrogated by Jalal al-Din Suyuti and others, and demonstrates why those verses are not in fact abrogated.

I think there is a typo here and it should be "later" instead of "early"?

[Saad]

:ws:
I think there is a typo here and it should be "later" instead of "early"?

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Thanks. It's fixed now.

[warea]

So bottom line is that there is no Quranic verse that has been abrogated in the sense that the verse is completely nullified. All Quranic verses are effective and relevant while abrogation is in providing more context, detail or conditions to the verse. Right? Is there ijma on this? What if someone does completely nullify a verse claiming abrogation by something else?

What about the discussion on Quran being abrogated by hadith? Imam Shafi(rah.) for example rejected this and restricted abrogation to be only between Quran with Quran and hadith with hadith. How have others scholars or schools concluded on this issue?

[Biggs]

Surely, abrogation is necessary because otherwise there would be contradictions.

[a.s.]

:salam:

Very interesting article.

Just one question: The article states that one of the 5 verses that Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi considers to be abrogated is Muzzammil:1 by Muzammil:20.

How does verse 20 abrogate verse 1? The only thing verse 1 says is "O you who wraps himself [in clothing]," while verse 20 talks about the Tahajjud prayer. How does it abrogate verse 1? Explanation?

:jazak: