IS THERE ABROGATION (NASKH) IN THE QURAN?
The abrogation of Quranic verses is arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, first put forward in the fourth century AH(After Hijrīyah)(late 10th century CE) by a number of Muslim scholars, including Ahmed bin Ishaq al-Dinari (died 318 AH), Muhammad bin Bahr al-Asfahani (died 322 AH), Hebatullah bin Salama (died 410 AH), and Muhammad bin Osman al-Hazm (died 584 AH). Ibn Hazm's book on al-Nasakh and al-Mansuk is considered one of the leading sources on this subject.
The verse whose ruling is abrogated is called mansukh, the evidence that abrogates the ruling is called nasih, and the entire event is called abrogation (naskh).
Although this concept initially arose from Muslim scholars' insufficient understanding of the Quran, it has been widely used by anti-Quranic writers to discredit the Book's perfection and divinity.
Both of these unfounded claims can be examined in light of the Quran. It can easily be shown that these claims are nothing more than a misunderstanding of the Book.
Of course, Muslims, first and foremost, should carefully read the following verses:
For them are good tidings in the worldly life and in the Hereafter. No change is there in the words of Allah. That is what is the great attainment.
Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Lord. Nothing can change His words, and you will never find any refuge besides Him.
And certainly were messengers denied before you, but they were patient over [the effects of] denial, and they were harmed until Our victory came to them. And none can alter(change) the words of Allah. And there has certainly come to you some information about the [previous] messengers.
The word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. Nothing can change His words, and He is the All-hearing, the All-knowing.
1. Alif Lam Ra. (This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect, and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted.
2. worship none but Allah. Verily, I (Muhammad SAW) am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of glad tidings.
These verses clearly state that Allah's words have been perfected and cannot be abrogated.
Surah Fussilet, verse 42.
Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it; [it is] a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy.
The word "al-batil" means "emptiness and meaninglessness." Just as previous divine messages did not contradict the Quran, no book will come after it that could contradict it. Nothing that the Quran declares to be true can be false; and nothing that it declares to be false can be true. Revelation is never deficient in any way.
The expression "Min beyni yedeyhi ve lâ min halfihî" means "neither from between his hands nor from behind him," but depending on the context, it can also mean "neither from the front nor from behind," "neither openly from the front nor secretly from behind," and "openly through additions and subtractions, or secretly through hostile and misleading interpretations," thus emphasizing the preservation of the revelation in all its forms.
Abrogation (Naskh) is an institution of cancellation and the resolution of a contradiction between two verses. There is no conflict or contradiction in the Quran.
Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.
Unfortunately, these so-called Muslim scholars have fabricated the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses, thereby becoming the subject of the following verses.
But as for those who contend with Our signs, seeking to frustrate [their purpose], they shall be the inmates of hell.
But those who strive against Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) to frustrate them, those, for them will be a severe painful torment.
Having provided this background information, let's now turn to the verse on which the claims are based:
We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
1) They interpret the word 'Verse(Āyah)' in this verse as referring to a verse in the Quran. However, the word 'verse', which appears in many places in the Quran, can have four different meanings:
a- A miracle of Allah:
And We had certainly given Moses nine evident signs(illustrious miracles), so ask the Children of Israel [about] when he came to them and Pharaoh said to him, "Indeed I think, O Moses, that you are affected by magic."
b- It can also mean an example from which people should learn a lesson :
Indeed in that (there) is a sure lesson for those who fear the torment of the Hereafter. That is a Day whereon mankind will be gathered together, and that is a Day when all (the dwellers of the heavens and the earth) will be present.
c- It can also mean a piece of evidence/sign :
Do you construct on every elevation a sign(monument), amusing yourselves,
And We have certainly left of it a sign as clear evidence for a people who use reason.
He said, ‘My Lord! Appoint a sign for me.’ He said, ‘Your sign is that you will not speak to the people for three complete nights.’
d- Finally, It might be referring to a verse from the Quran, for example:
[This is] a blessed Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded.
2) Now, in light of this information, let's look at the topic mentioned in the previous verse without taking 2:106 out of context :
Neither those who disbelieve from the People of the Scripture nor the polytheists wish that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord. But Allah selects for His mercy whom He wills, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty.
The point emphasized in verse 105 is what the disbelievers, both from the People of the Book and the polytheists, did not want to be revealed to this last nation. Therefore, they were not concerned with the abrogation of any ruling or the coming of a new one. What they did not want to be revealed was the revelation in its entirety, that is, the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad.
The disbelievers among the People of the Book were envious and jealous that the Prophet was not from among them. The polytheists of Mecca stated that their primary desire was for an angelic prophet, but if it had to be a human, then it should be given to someone from one of the two great cities, as mentioned in the following verse:
31. And they said, "Why was this Qur'an not sent down upon a great man from [one of] the two cities?"
32. Do they distribute the mercy of your Lord? It is We who have distributed their sustenance in this world and raised the positions of some of them above the others so that they would mock each other. The mercy of your Lord is better than what they can amass.
Allah Almighty informs us that neither the disbelievers among the People of the Book nor the polytheists wished for even the slightest benefit to befall the believers, and that, in this context, they absolutely did not approve of the prophetic mission, which is the pinnacle of worldly favor and generosity, being bestowed upon the Prophet Muhammad, and that they could never, ever accept it:
And when there comes to them a sign (from Allah) they say: "We shall not believe until we receive the like of that which the Messengers of Allah had received." Allah knows best with whom to place His Message. Humiliation and disgrace from Allah and a severe torment will overtake the criminals (polytheists, sinners, etc.) for that which they used to plot.
When considered within the context of the verse, it is clear that the word "verse" in 2:106 cannot be interpreted as meaning a sign, evidence, lesson, miracle, or message, but rather as a ruling of the Quran.
3) If any ruling in a religious law has been abrogated, concealed, or forgotten, then abrogation (naskh) may have occurred, meaning it can be restored to its original, correct form, or new version in a subsequent religious law. The following verses demonstrate that things prohibited or permitted by one prophet's message can be changed by a later prophet:
And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurat (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, [O Muhammad], "So bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful."
O people of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger explaining to you much of that which you used to hide from the Scripture and passing over (i.e. leaving out without explaining) much. Indeed, there has come to you from Allah a light and a plain Book (this Quran).
4) If the word "verse(Āyah)" in this verse refers to a verse in the Quran, then the expression "to cause it to be forgotten" would not be valid. This is because even if we assume (for the sake of argument) that a particular Quranic verse has been abrogated, such an abrogated verse would still be part of the Quran, read daily by all Muslims, and therefore could never be forgotten!
5) If the word "verse(Āyah)" in this verse refers to a verse of the Quran, then the words "better than" would be meaningless,
because the Words of God in the Quran are absolute truth. It is impossible for one verse of the Quran to be "better" than another verse in the Book. The word "better" applies only to relative quantities and objects, not to the absolute. Consequently, All verses(ayah) are divine truth.
6) If the word "verse(Āyah)" in this verse meant a verse of the Quran, then the expression "similar" would also be meaningless,
because it would be illogical for Allah to invalidate a verse and replace it with a similar one! This again shows that what is being abrogated is not a verse of the Quran.
7) When we examine the word "verse(Āyah)" in the Quran, we see a very interesting usage:
The singular form of "verse(Āyah)" is never used anywhere in the Quran to mean "verses that are parts of the Quran ." When referring to verses that are parts of the Quran, the word is always given in the plural. Since it appears in the singular form as "verse(Āyah)" in Surah Al-Baqarah verse 106, we can show this as further evidence that it refers not to the verses of the Quran, but to one of the other meanings indicated by the singular use of the word "ayat" as mentioned above.
8) Another verse cited as evidence regarding abrogation (Naskh) is the following:
Nahl 101. Verse
101. When We replace one verse with another —and Allah is All-Knowing of what He sends down—they say, “You are nothing but a fabricator!” Nay, most of them do not know.
Firstly, since this surah and, of course, this verse are from the Meccan period, it is known that there was no practical example of the theory called "abrogation" (naskh) at that time, and indeed, the issue of "abrogation" was not even on the agenda in Mecca. Not only in Mecca, but also in Medina, at the time when verse 106 of Surah al-Baqarah, presented as the most important evidence of abrogation, was revealed, there was absolutely no question or perception of "abrogation" in this sense. The muslims were not even aware of the concept of "abrogation" in the sense discussed today; because in terms of time, place, and needs, such a topic was absolutely not considered.
Since abrogation is a matter accepted as occurring between rulings, and there were no verses of rulings subject to change in the Meccan period, it is not correct to speak of "abrogation" here. The polytheists were not in a position to make any choice, that is, to like or dislike, regarding the verses that were revealed.
If the claims of the proponents of abrogation (naskh) were true, then there would be explicit talk of abrogation, not a mere alteration (tabdil), which is not the case. "Tabdil" means "to remove something from its place by replacing it with another." "Tabdil of an ayah" is "the removal of an ayah by replacing it with another." The proponents of abrogation argue that, rather than a verse being removed and replaced by another in the Quran, there are verses in the Quran that both abrogate and are abrogated.
It is not known whether any questions were raised regarding "which verse replaced which" when this verse was revealed. Even proponents of abrogation (naskh) have not provided an explanation of which verses were referred to in this context. This is because, since this surah was revealed in Mecca, principles or rulings concerning social life had not yet been revealed, there could be no question of any necessity to change any ruling.
According to the polytheists, the entire revelation was the word of the Prophet or a human being. Indeed, the verses that follow this verse continue in this manner, stating, "Allah knows very well what He sends down," and clearly indicating that the source of the revelation is divine.
Given this, it is clear that the issue discussed in the verse we are interpreting is not an alteration within the Quran itself.
The polytheists, who did not accept the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad and leveled various accusations against him, are answered in the next verse, An-Nahl 16:102, because they did not accept divine revelation. It is stated that the entire revelation was sent down by the Holy Spirit, that is, Gabriel.
102. Say, Ruh-ul-Qudus [The Holy Spirit-Jibrael (Gabriel)] has brought it (the Quran) down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the Faith of) those who believe and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allah as Muslims).
103. And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Quran) is a clear Arabic tongue.
The polytheists were criticizing not the newly revealed verses, but the source of the principles conveyed by the Prophet; they claimed that these were human, not divine. Meanwhile, the verse uses the word "beddelnâ/tebdîl," meaning "change," not "abrogation" directly at 101. Within this framework, it is understood that the intention is not about changes in the Quran, but about a change in the message of prophethood.
9) The last verse cited as evidence for abrogation (naskh) is:
Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.
When you read this verse so far, you will naturally conclude that whatever you are thinking about, Allah abrogates what He wills and keeps what He wills ثابت (fixed). If you are considering the abrogation of Quranic verses, this could be a good proof for you.
If we look at the verse before and within its context...
38. Certainly We have sent apostles(messengers) before you, and We appointed for them wives and descendants; and an apostle may not bring a sign except by Allah’s leave. There is a written [ordinance] for every term:
39. Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.
The word translated as "term" is "ajal" (appointed time of death). That is, every appointed time (duration) is in the book. It is stated that Allah erases what He wills and establishes what He wills. However, bringing up the issue of erasing Quranic verses seems like another irrelevant and forced interpretation.
The fact that every appointed time has a book implies that the promised or threatened time has a predetermined duration. It is understood that the disbelievers, eager for punishment, use this as a reason for denial because no destruction occurs at the time or place they desire.
In this verse, instead of the word "naskh," the word "yemhû," meaning to erase or to wipe out, is used, a word used only in this verse of the Quran.
Furthermore, considering that it does not contain any rulings on the subject matter, Surah Ra'd is thought to be more of a Meccan surah. Therefore, presenting it as evidence for abrogation when there are no rulings to be found does not seem very logical.