The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

Miracles, Myths, Mistakes and MattersSee Title Page and List of Contents

See: Project Rebuttal: What the West needs to know about Islam

Refuting the gross distortion and misrepresentation of the Quran, the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, made by the critics of Islam

Read: Background to the Project

List of all Issues | Summary 1 | Summary 2 | Summary 3

September 22nd, 2009

The theory of abrogation in the Quran

Submitted by Bashir.


In the light of certain hadith from Muslim and Bukhari I would like to re-open the theory of NASKH. As we all know, ahmadis(q and L) do not believe in this theory. The main reason why ahmadis dont believe in this is in terms of Jihad as well as the theory that the KOran is perfect and without contradictory material.

Muslims have always believed that the tone of language that was used in chapter 9 superseceded all previous announcements on the subject of Jihad. Ahmadis dont believe this at all. Ahmadis believe that the Koran is to be understood collectively and situationally. Again, if the ahmadis believed in the abrogation theory, then they would be forced to believe that the Jihad in Chapter 9, supercedes the level of jihad as written before that.

In this introdution I will only post 1 or 2 traditions from Muslim and Bukhari. I would appreciate it if some scholars would give me their insight on the matter in the light of the data presented. Chapter 1 will be written by me very soon.

Here is the first chunk of data to be examined by all.

Sahih Muslim

Book 003, Number 0675:
Abu al. ‘Ala’ b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur’an abrogates some part with the other.

Sahih Muslim

Book 004, Number 1317:
Al-Bara’ b. ‘Azib reported: This verse was revealed (in this way):” Guard the prayers and the ‘Asr prayer.” We recited it (in this very way) so long as Allah desired. Allah, then, abrogated it and it was revealed:” Guard the prayers, and the middle prayer.” A person who was sitting with Shaqiq (one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters) said: Now it implies the ‘Asr prayer. Upon this al-Bara’ said: I have already informed you how this (verse) was revealed and how Allah abrogated it, and Allah knows best. Imam Muslim said: Ashja’i narrated it from Sufyan al-Thauri, who narrated it from al-Aswad b. Qais, who narrated it from ‘Uqba, who narrated it from al-Bara’ b. ‘Azib who said: We recited with the Prophet (may peace be upon him) (the above-mentioned verse like this, i. e. instead of Salat al- Wusta, Salat al-‘Asr

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 68:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

This Verse:–“Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it..” (2.284) was abrogated.

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 69:
Narrated Marwan Al-Asghar:

A man from the companions of Allah’s Apostle who I think, was Ibn ‘Umar said, “The Verse:–“Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it….” was abrogated by the Verse following it.”

44 Responses to “The theory of abrogation in the Quran”

  1. Not one of these reports quotes words of the Holy Prophet. You will find there is no hadith in which the Holy Prophet himself is reported as saying that a verse was abrogated.

    Now consider the following two reports in Bukhari:

    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 170:
    Narrated Nafi:

    Ibn ‘Umar recited the verse: “They had a choice either to fast or to feed a poor person for every day, and said that the order of this Verse was cancelled.

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 32:
    Narrated ‘Ata:

    That he heard Ibn ‘Abbas reciting the Divine Verse:–

    “And for those who can fast they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day..” (2.184) Ibn ‘Abbas said, “This Verse is not abrogated, but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting).”

    Regarding the same verse 2:184, Ibn Umar is reported as saying that it is abrogated and Ibn Abbas is reported as saying that it is not abrogated. So which is it then?

    Maulana Maudoodi also didn’t believe in abrogation. Here is his comment on verse 2:106 in Tafheem-ul-Quran:

    “(2:106) We bring a better verse or at least the like of it for whatever we abrogate or cause it to be forgotten.

    *This is in response to a doubt which the Jews tried to implant in the minds of the Muslims. If both the earlier Scriptures and the Qur’an were revelations from God, why was it – they asked – that the injunctions found in the earlier Scriptures had been replaced by new ones in the Qur’an? How could the same God issue divergent injunctions?… …”

    That is exactly the Ahmadiyya view, that verse 2:106 does not refer to abrogation of verses of the Quran, but of earlier scriptures by the Quran.

    Above ref is at this link:

  2. ZA: thanks for the input, I really appreciate your scholarly opinion.

    The most decorated books on Islam after the Koran are Bukhari and Muslim. Even HMGA never discredited them i any book or in any speech. Noorudin did not discredit them either.

    1. You mentioned that none of these reports go back to the HP(saw). Are you attempting to discredit BUkhari and Muslim to a certain extent? Were Bukhari and muslims not using their brains when adding these to their books of tradition?

    2. Ibn Abbas had a idea of what verses were or werent abrogated. Doesnt that mean that abrogation happened?

    Here is the data from the oldest Tafsir in the history of the planet BY IBN ABBAS of course:

    “Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur’an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet: O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying: (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.”

    3. Ibn Umar claimed that some verse had in fact been cancelled. Doesnt this prove that abrogation existed in some form or another?

    There exists mounds and mounds of evidence that supports the theory that abrogation existed.

  3. Imam Maliki in his book of tradition narrates a tradition from AISHA, he writes:

    Book 30, Number 30.3.17:
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Amongst what was sent down of the Qur’an was ‘ten known sucklings make haram’ – then it was abrogated by ‘five known sucklings’. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur’an.”

    Yahya said that Malik said, “One does not act on this.”


    Book 5, Number 1299:
    Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

    In Surat al-Muzzammil (73), the verse: “Keep vigil at night but a little, a half thereof” (2-3) has been abrogated by the following verse: “He knoweth that ye count it not, and turneth unto you in mercy. Recite then of the Qur’an that which is easy for you” (v.20). The phrase “the vigil of the night” (nashi’at al-layl) means the early hours of the night. They (the companions) would pray (the tahajjud prayer) in the early hours of the night.

    He (Ibn Abbas) says: It is advisable to offer the prayer at night (tahajjud), prescribed by Allah for you (in the early hours of the night). This is because when a person sleeps, he does not know when he will awake. The words “speech more certain” (aqwamu qilan) means that this time is more suitable for the understanding of the Qur’an. He says: The verse: “Lo, thou hast by day a chain of business” (v.7) means engagement for long periods (in the day’s work).

    Book 12, Number 2275:
    Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

    Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three monthly courses; and then said: And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months. This was abrogated from the former verse. Again he said: (O ye who believe, if ye wed believing women) and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon.”


  4. None of these reports attributes any statement to the Holy Prophet that he said that a certain verse was abrogated. Why isn’t the Holy Prophet himself quoted even once anywhere as declaring a verse as abrogated? There are of course thousands of reports quoting the Holy Prophet on the widest variety of topics, but not even one on abrogation.

  5. Abrogation of verses within Quran, if any, is tantamount to Allah saying Oops! Thus implicitly declaring that Allah is capable of making mistakes. LOL. The ambiguity probably arises from use of translated word “verse” instead of “message” e.g.

    2:106. If We supersede any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better one or one similar. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things! [Hilali Khan]

    2:106. Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it. Knowest thou not that Allah is Possessor of power over all things? [Muhammad Ali]

    I do not know of any errata issued for Quran by Muhammad PBUH, but Quran references itself as newer edition of previous messages. Of course newer editions override some aspects of previous editions:

    5:68. Say, `O People of the Scripture! you stand no where unless you observe the Torah and the Evangel and that (- Qur’ân) which has (now) been revealed to you from your Lord…. [Nooruddin]

    Any human interference in Quran would have created inconsistency in the inter linkage which it does not have:

    4:82. Why do they not ponder over the Qur’ân? Had it been from anyone other than Allâh, they would surely have found a good deal of inconsistency therein. [Nooruddin]

    41:3. (It is) a Book, the verses of which are detailed and clear in exposition. It is beautifully inter linked, (and it is in a language that) makes the meanings eloquently clear. It is very useful for a people who have knowledge. [Nooruddin]

  6. Ikram: I read your responce and I appreciate your input. I am sure that I can learn alot from you.

    Anyhow, we have to learn Islam as it is. Not Islam as you(or anyone else) WANT it to be. I study Islam without any affiliations, without any reservations and without any biases.

    You cannot dismiss the countless references in muslim and bukhari that elude to some form of abrogation. This phenomenon did exist in Islam! I am not sure as to exactly how much it existed, but it did exist.

    Sahih Muslim

    Book 003, Number 0675:
    Abu al. ‘Ala’ b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur’an abrogates some part with the other.

    I referenced this in my introduction, should we throw this in the trash-bin? Is it nonsense? Are you claiming that Imam Muslim had a lapse in terms of his BRAIN?

    NOW, why are ahmadis wanting to use a hadith from KANZULUMMAL(jesus’ age), which is not even an authentic report. But then, you wont trust bukhari or muslim, just because it doesnt support your view?

    Thats double standards. Why do ahmadis even quote the mujadids? Dont you believe that the mujadids are a BAD source of info, based on their thoughts of jihad, abrogation, jesus’ return, the mirraj. So how are these guys good sources of information?

    HMGA shuold have answered all of these questions 100 years ago. When did HMGA first state that abrogation didnt exist? What did he base it on? Did allah tell him that?


    1. Is this the best argument that exists? Should we erase BUkhari and Muslims in terms of abrogation reports because they dont go back to the HP? Is that what this has come down to?

    2. So bukhari and muslim are authentic except for reports that dont go back the HP? What other mistakes did Buhkari and Muslim make?

    Maybe the HP didnt speak about abrogation because it was something that he chose to not speak about. If 100% of the muslims from Ibn abbas to Sir Syed say that this happened, dont you believe it?

    Muhammad Ali claimed that prophethood was something that a consensus of opinion. Consensus of opinion could be doubted. I am just using the same standards, am I not?


    What if Allah said it? What if allah told us that some portions had been abrogated?

    Ibn Abbas in his tafsir, he relates a story in which the Koraish objected to the contradictions of the Koran.

    Then the verse was revealed:

    Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur’an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet: O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying: (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.

    SUYUTI said the same:

    When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his Companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed: And whatever verse (mā is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not [that is only its judgement, but its recital continues]; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ‘[Whatever verse] We command you or Gabriel to abrogate’, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading [of nunsi’hā] is nunsihā, from ‘to forget’: so ‘[Whatever verse We abrogate] or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart’; the response to the conditional sentence [begun with mā] is: We bring [in place] a better, one that is more beneficial for [Our] servants, either because it is easier [to implement] or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting [verses]? (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).

  9. Bashir  wrote:
    >>Even HMGA never discredited them i any book or in any speech. Noorudin did not discredit them either.<<
    What do you mean by discredit them? So by your logic if he had made the statement that these books are discredited then everything in them was wrong, or, if he has never made that statement (as you claim) then every thing in them is as correct as in the Quran?

  10. For Tariq:

    a. HMGA never discredited Bukhari and Muslim in any manner(i think). HMGA, when arguing that Jesus actually died, he challenged the Ulama to use the Koran, Muslim and BUkhari as a measuring stick. This proves that these books are super-authentic. I recall that Muhammad Ali claimed that Bukhari made one mistake in terms of Abraham telling lies.

    b. And yes, if you discredit Bukhari and Muslim in any manner then you open a can of worms. After discrediting them, one must think that there must exist other errors.

    Before the ahmadiyya, did any muslim ever question bukharee or muslim on anything? Did any mujadid even claim that one tradition of these two books was a SHAM? I THINK NOT.

  11. The doctrine of abrogation means that someone other than Allah and other than the Holy Prophet Muhammad can tell us that a certain specific command contained in the Quran should not be acted upon. That seems as dangerous as someone claiming to be a prophet with a shariah! Neither Allah in the Quran said nor the Holy Prophet anywhere said, regarding any verse, that it has been abrogated.

    To see the absurdities that this doctrine can lead to, just read what a believer in it, Ahmad Von Denffer, writes in his book Ulum-ul-Quran. One type of abrogation is that in which Sunnah can abrogate the Quran! See this link. Then he tells us that some verses are abrogated as regards their recitation, and out of these some were also abrogated as regards the command contained therein, while some were abrogated  only as regards their recitation but not as regards their command. See this link. This  means that  there are verses which were later excluded from the Quran by abrogation, and non-sensically the commands in some of these are still in force! Why abrogate the words and leave the command in force!

    In one of Bashir’s quotations the following words from 2:284 are said to be abrogated: “And whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will call you to account according to it.” What does it mean that this is abrogated? Does it mean that we are free to plan and scheme all sorts of evil in our minds with impunity?

    In many cases when the Companions used the word naskh it clearly meant that people’s misunderstanding of a certain verse was removed by a later verse.  The earlier verse was clarified. The above words caused the worry that a person would be called to account for each and every passing thought in his mind. So Allah clarified it by saying that He would not impose any hardship on a soul except to the extent of its ability.

  12. Bukhari and Muslim to a large extent only collected material together and preserved it. They did not suggest that the content of the material was infallible. Rather, they expected people to be able to pass judgment on it, which could be done centuries later. If they hadn’t preserved the material, it would have been lost. That was their primary task.

  13. I thank all of you for helping me learn this theory.
    I follow the Koran and the two most authentic books after that, i.e. bukharee and muslim. Everything else is looked at with a shadow of doubt.

    The ahmadi argument hinges on the context of Chapter 2 Verse 106. The ahmadis go against all the historical accounts of the context of this verse. I will elaborate.

    1.a. Muslims always thought that Chapter 2 Verse 106 reffered to the Koraish and their objections about the contradictory statements of Muhammad. Suyuti and Ibn Abbas have been very clear as to what the context of that verse is. Ahmadis have changed the context of that verse, thus changing the verse altogether.

    1.b. Ahmadis and some other groups of muslims have written that this means that the Koran abrogates the Torah and the Injeel. What information do they have from bukharee or muslim that proves this assertion? Whereas the muslims have multiple testimonies that prove this fact.

    My conclusion on the matter is that this verse referred to exactly what ibn abbas wrote in his tafsir. Ibn Abbas was of the opinion that ALLAH himself abrogated verses for the betterment of the muslims.

    I cant understand how nansukh(abrogated/es/ing) can be taken to mean the clearing of a misunderstanding. That doesnt make sense at all to me.

    I agree that the abrogation theory is a very dangerous theory, and it damages the purity of the Koran. I cant deny historical as well as facts from 2 important books of tradition.

    I just found this in Bukharee:

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8:
    Narrated Ibn Abbas:

    Umar said, “Our best Qur’an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is ‘Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, ‘I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah’s Apostle while Allah:

    “Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it.” (2.106)

    In Bukharee, Allah leaves some of the statements of Muhammad. THIS IS BUKHAREE.

  14. I also found this:

    Frequently cited examples of intra-Qur’ānic abrogation are:

    Verse: Q.8:65
    Abrogator (nāsikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 .
    Verse: Q.2:180
    Abrogator: Q.4:10-11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased’s relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhsīs (specification).
    Verse: 2.219
    Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol:
    Verse: Q.9:5 (āyat al-sayf, the “sword verse”)
    Abrogatee (mansūkh): Literally dozens of verses enjoining the umma’s peacable conduct towards outside groups: Hibat Allāh and al-Nahhās cite 124 and 130 verses, respectively[7]. Ibn al Jawzī and Mustafā Zayd count 140 verses[49]
    Verse: Q.9:29
    Abrogatee: “Nahhās considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries”[50].
    Examples of inter-Qur’ānic abrogation, where one of the rulings comes from the Sunna, are:

    Verse: Q.2:150
    Abrogatee: The Sunna which established Jerusalem as the direction of prayer (qibla).
    Verse: Q.24:2
    Abrogator: For those unwilling to countenance the existence of a “lost” āyat al-rajm (e.g. Qurtubī, Al-Ghazālī), the Prophetic Sunna which establishes stoning to death as the penalty for adultery.

  15. Bashir,
    Please read the following book by HMGA:
    Al-Haq Ludhiana.
    It is availbale on your jama’at’s website at:
    Ruhani Khazain – Volume 4 (Item Number 9)
    ALL of the points that you have raised are answered there.

  16. The abrogation theory

    Chapter 1 The Context

    Before understanding Chapter 2 verse 106 we must understand the context. The ahmadis(q & l) claim that this verse has a connection with a complaint that was issued by the Jews. The ahmadis claim that the Koran Mansukhes the Torah/Injeel and all other revealed books.

    At the time there werent much differences between Islam and Judaism. There wasnt much that Islam brought to the table that didnt previously exist. They both believed in 1 god, the 10 commandments etc etc. I would love to see an article that shows that in terms of the timeframe of just before the battle of badr(1 A.H.) what the differences between the Koran and Torah was.

    Back to the muslims 99.9% of all muslims(shiite and sunni) from Ibn abbas to the 19th century believed that the context of this verse was related to various complaints from the Quraysh as well as other disbelievers. They complained that Muhammad was constantly changing his mind.

    When studying Islam there are some rules that need to be followed. As per those rules I have given a reference to sahih BUkhari where this verse is explained:

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8:

    Narrated Ibn Abbas:
    Umar said, “Our best Qur’an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is ‘Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, ‘I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah’s Apostle while Allah:
    “Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it.” (2.106)

    In this explanation it is clear that the words of the Koran supercede anything that is said by Muhammad. I also think it means that muslims sometimes were forgetful of certain verses, so allah would send a better verse, which would supercede anything on the topic.

    A good example is this: Muhammad told the muslims to pray facing Jerusalem, allah changed that order. Allah, at one time allowed muslims to drink alcohol, as long as they came to salat sober. A few years later, allah changed his mind and totally revoked the drinking of alcohol.

  17. It is not only Ahmadis who say that this related to an objection of the Jews, but as I quoted above in my comment on 22nd September, Maulana Maudoodi, who has millions of Sunni followers and admirers, says the same.

    “This is in response to a doubt which the Jews tried to implant in the minds of the Muslims. …” (more complete quote above).

    You say: We must understand the context of 2:106. In that case, simply read the verses before and after 2:106. The wrong beliefs of both Jews and Christians are criticised, and they are mentioned by name!

    The above statement from Ibn Abbas is unsound in itself. It apparently says that Umar’s objection was that Ubai recited even those verses that had been abrogated. But all reciters of the Quran have always recited, till today, all the verses which are allegedly abrogated. Taking your list above of 8:65, 2:180 etc., those verses were recited by all reciters. So Umar should have objected to all reciters!

    His meaning may well have been that just because someone is a good reciter, it doesn’t follow that he has the judgment (like Ali’s) to interpret the Quran. We see this before us. There are children of ten years of age who can recite the whole of the Quran from memory.

    Bashir’s comment that the Quran can supercede anything said by the Holy Prophet is of course true, but irrelevant in this discussion because that is not abrogation in the Quran, as in his own example of changing the direction of prayer. The direction of Jerusalem was not based on any Quranic command.

    Regarding the alcohol example, nowhere did Allah say, earlier, that Muslims are “allowed” to drink. Allah did not say: You may drink but you must be sober when you pray. The whole verse (4:43) is about the state one should be in, or not in, when praying. Even a sober person may be in a state in which he does not know what he is saying (as mentioned in that verse). There are medicines not containing alcohol which make you drowsy and will send you to sleep if you start praying under their side-effect.

  18.                                                            Chapter 1 discussion

    1.  I had mentioned from ibn abbas to HMGA.  I knew of the views of Maudoodi on the matter, that was why I restricted this study to the pre-HMGA era. 

    The fact that any ahmadi is quoting Maudoodi in any manner is unbelievable.  In fact, I dont think that the ahmadis should quote any mujadid as a credible source of information. 

    Ahmadis believe that allah mis-guided the mujadids in these matters:

    1.  jihad
    2.  The return of jesus
    3.  Prophethood(q only)
    4.  MANSUKH
    5.  the miraaj
    6.  the birth of jesus(L only)

    So why would ahmadis ever quote these people as good sources of info.  The mujadids barely understood Islam, WHAT WAS THEIR PURPOSE?

    Werent the mujadids LIKE PROPHETS???  Well, they didnt help us much.   They were suppose to rejuvante the religion, not push it off the cliff. 

    2.  The context of 2:106 was never challenged in Islam until HMGA did so(i found one group that opposed mansukh).  All the mujadids and all muffassirs understood it the same.  Are you telling me that Allah did not even explain to them the KORAN?  That is hard to digest! 

    3.  Do you wish to discredit Ibn Abbas?  If you do, then you have to throw away all of his traditions, not just the ones that you dont like.  I believe that Ibn Abbas’  Tafsir was preserved properly.  Nobody tampered with this tafsir at all.  Do you believe the opposite?  Are you inferring that muslims tampered with the tafsir of ibn abbas? 

    4.  Personally, I dont what 2:106 means.  I wasnt there when it was revealed, nor did I live in that era.  I rely on the koran, bukhari and muslim, as well as the early mufassirs. 

    4.a.  I am concerned that recent evolving muslims have attempted to re-interpret Islam after seeing many problems with it.  I am concerned that muslims will continue to redesign the context of Koranic verses to change there meanings. 

    5.  In terms of alcohol.  At the time 4:43 was revealed there existed only one type of intoxicant.  These primitive people did not categorize intoxicants seperately.  All intoxicants were consumed in liquid.  Smoking did not exist, injections did not exist. 

    I am surprised that you are claiming that allah didnt allow drinking in so many words.  The wording is not exact, but allah allowed drinking in Islam.  Then he later revoked it. 

    If you argue that allah didnt exactly say that it was OK, this is not a valid argument.  FYI: muslims will be allowed to drink wine in heaven.  Wine is not like swine.  There are no pigs in heaven. 

    I will provide one reference:

    Volume 7, Book 69, Number 488:

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    I was serving Abu ‘Ubaida, Abu Talha and Ubai bin Ka’b with a drink prepared from ripe and unripe dates. Then somebody came to them and said, “Alcoholic drinks have been prohibited.” (On hearing that) Abu Talha said, “Get up. O Anas, and pour (throw) it out! So I poured (threw) it out.

    In my opinion they were referring to 5:90/91, not 4:43. 

    So muslims did drink wine even after 4:43 was revealed. 

  19. In his comment Bashir had said that “Ahmadis claim” and “Ahmadis believe”. This is why I quoted Maudoodi.

    Bashir has come up with a unique principle. Either you say someone is 100% right or that he is 100% wrong. So Ahmadis can’t quote Maudoodi on any issue whatsoever (“in any manner”). And if we disagree with one reported statement of Ibn Abbas, it means we have to reject everything he said!

    As to mujaddids being “misguided”, the Companions believed each other to be “misguided” on various issues. On abrogation, Shah Waliullah in the 1700s (a mujaddid) discussed in detail that previous mujaddids and commentators were wrong in believing a large number of verses to be abrogated, and that in his view they could only have been right about 5 of them. So that is not Ahmadis, but a renowned Sunni scholar, long before them, declaring those before him to be wrong.

    2. The Holy Prophet Muhammad is never reported by any person as saying that 2:106 means verses in the Quran are abrogated. Its context has been challenged by Maudoodi. The question is, why should a scholar like him who would wish to disagree with Ahmadis, if at all possible, agree with them on this point. It is because he finds the evidence incontrovertible.

    3. How many Muslim scholars accept that so-called tafsir of Ibn Abbas? We have discussed earlier that it was written many centuries later, with no chain of sources going back to Ibn Abbas.

    4. For context of 2:106, read the context! You wrote that at the time of its revelation: “there werent much differences between Islam and Judaism.” Read 2:97-105, then 2:108-113.

    5. “Evolving Islam”. The fact is that people like Bashir want to represent Islam as a primitive and bloodthirsty religion of ignorance. Therefore they become discomfited when Ahmadis, or any other Muslims, show that such a picture is belied by the Quran and hadith, if these are studied in a coherent way according to proper principles (rather than plucking out statements from here and there).

    5. Regarding the prohibition of alcohol, 4:43 is not abrogated for several reasons. The command in it (and there are other commands in it as well) is that one must not be intoxicated when coming to prayer. Has that been abrogated? If you act on 5:90-91 (don’t drink at all), you are also fulfilling 4:43. A verse about this even earlier than 4:43 is 2:219 which says regarding drinking and gambling that “in both of them there is a great sin and some advantage for people, but their sin is greater than their advantage”. How could Allah have “allowed” alcohol while calling it a “great sin” (ithm kabir)? The fact is that Allah gave these clear pointers till the final prohibition. The final prohibition cannot be an abrogation of the earlier verses! The word naskh has also been used by companions and commentators as meaning that a later verse clarified the intent of an earlier one, not cancelled it, which is what we find here.

    The following questions arise regarding abrogation. (1) If we read any report (by a Companion) that a verse is abrogated, is it to be accepted, or do we need supporting reports from other Companions? (2) If one companion says a verse is abrogated and another says it is not (see my earlier example from Bukhari), who is right? (3) It is a fact that every statement the companons made has not been reported or recorded. So, are there any verses we can declare abrogated even when there is no report about them?

  20. “5.  In terms of alcohol.  At the time 4:43 was revealed there existed only one type of intoxicant. These primitive people did not categorize intoxicants seperately.  All intoxicants were consumed in liquid.  Smoking did not exist, injections did not exist.”

    Firstly, the above quote represents the lack of common knowledge by its writer. A substance is categorized as intoxicant only and only if it has a receptor for it in the brain. Cannabis, Opium, Amphetamine, Cocaine, and Alcohol etc. are mind altering and addicting only because they have their own specific receptors in the brain. Whereas on the other hand gasoline does not have a receptor where it can bind in the brain, hence it is not an intoxicant. These receptors in the brain did not form after 4:43 was revealed. They were always there.

    The same writer probably does not know that in all four corners of the world there were intoxicants specific to those regions, mostly from unique flora of those regions e.g. cocoa leaves in South America, opium in Persia and khat in Yemen etc. Even fauna can be a source of intoxicants e.g certain toads in the rain forests. Many a times, these intoxicants were part of religious and spiritual ceremonies. Christianity (of Europe) was uniquely tied to Alcohol for which they sanctified its use by inventing miracle of Jesus in which he converted water into wine.

    Mirza Sahib deals with alcohol consumption of pre-Islam Arabs in detail in “Fateh-e-Islam”. Interestingly, Mirza Sahib points out that pre-Islamic Arabs were so far removed from any religion, that despite intense missionary efforts of Christianity and other religions, they did not accept any virtue of such preaching, but only adapted the vice of drinking alcohol. Their society was so much drunkard that they ceremonised alcohol by drinking five times a days with unique name for each drinking period (maybe each drinking time coincided with the time of withdrawal from previous drinking.) Islam approximated these five times drinking with five time prayers.

    Secondly, smoking and injections are only a means of delivering a drug. Smoking was probably already prevalent in Americas. But sniffing the smoke of various herbs was employed at least medicinally in the old world.

    Thirdly, Quran is interlinked in verses and ideas. A blind touching an elephant will never understand the full scope of its anatomy, physiology, anthropology, sociology etc. Any description from such an experience will be limited to only its trunk or a tail and rejection of the rest.

    Fourthly, the case of Abrogation is being made purely on secondary sources without emphasis on the Primary. If it were Court of Law, this case will be thrown out purely on its lack of merit.

    Fifthly, Sixthly…. and so on. But the question remains for the proponents of Abrogation. Are you waiting for another Book after Quran? If not, then how can you believe in a book more like a Bible?

  21. Here is a bizarre aspect of the belief in abrogation. See this page from the commentary of Ibn Kathir.

    It says: “The majority of the scholars said that this Ayah (2:240) was abrogated by the Ayah (2:234), ”

    No, this is not a misprint. Verse 2:240 is considered to be abrogated by 2:234, which is of course six verses earlier than 2:240!

    Regarding this, it is recorded in Bukhari (as referred to here by Ibn Kathir) that Ibn Zubair asked Hazrat Uthman: Why are you including 2:240 in the Quran when it has been abrogated? Ibn Kathir explains that what this question meant was:

    “If the Ayah (2:240) remains (in the Qur’an) after the Ayah that abrogated it (2:234), this might imply that its ruling is still valid.”

    The reply given by Hazrat Uthman was that he couldn’t change the Quran. (In the Bukhari online translation see Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53).

    But the question is quite natural and logical: why should 2:240 remain in the Quran, especially as it occurs after the verse 2:234 which abrogated it!

    In an earlier comment, Bashir quoted a report that Hazrat Umar objected to the fact that someone who was a fine reciter of the Quran recited even abrogated verses. But here Hazrat Uthman says that he cannot remove an abroagted verse from the Quran! The two views expressed are opposite to each other.

    Then we are told by Ibn Kathir in the link above that some believe (e.g. Ibn Abbas) that 2:234 was revealed after 2:240 and abrogated it. Others (e.g. Mujahid as reported in Bukhari) believe that 2:240 was revealed after 2:234, and was not abrogated by it. However, it was later abrogated by 4:12.

    All these disagreements and resort to complicated explanations just show the unsoundness of the belief in abrogation.

  22. For ZA: Every mujadid that allah sent for the rejuvanation of the muslims claimed that the Koran consisted of inconsistencies. They fixed these problems thru the theory of MANSUKH.

    4:82. Why do they not ponder over the Qur’ân? Had it been from anyone other than Allâh, they would surely have found a good deal of inconsistency therein. [Nooruddin]

    FYI: all the mujadids and mufassirs found a good deal of inconsistency. DO YOU SEE THE IRONY?


    I will not use anyone as a source for good information if I think that they cant accurately define the Koran. Ahmadis (q and L) believe that 99% of the mujadids and mufassirs did not understand the fundamentals of the Koran.

    If a person believes in MANSUKH in the Koran, how is that person even understanding an ounce of what the Koran is? How can that person understand what ALLAh has brought to the world?

    1. Shah waliullah believed in Mansukh in the Koran, this is my point. Every muslim scholar believes in this principal, they just differed as to exactly HOW MUCH. THATS MY OVERALL POINT.

    2. Why did Maudoodi agree with ahmadis on this point? I dont know. Personally, i think that this guy is insane!!! I dont reference him EVER.

    3. Just go ahead and say that this Koran was tampered with. That is what you are inferring, is it not? Todd Lawson quoted 5 other tafsir’s from ibn abbas’ era that confirmed the “sustitution theory” of jesus.

    3.a. If ibn abbas had written that jesus died, I am sure that you would be the first to fight for the authenticity of that book.

    4. Maybe there were some differences between the muslims and jews, I havent researched that point as of yet. But to link 2:106 with the Mansukh of the torah and the bible is a stretch. This verse is open to interpretation. The mujadids that allah sent interpreted it. Why else did allah send mujadids? are you telling me that these guys didnt even understand the Koran?

    5. I wanna research Islam the WAY IT IS. Not a watered down version. I want to credit Tabari and Hisham for their work. I dont want to dis-credit any artifact just because it doesnt fit my needs.


    Book 26, Number 3662:
    Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

    When the prohibition of wine (was yet to be) declared, Umar said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine.

    So the following verse of Surat al-Baqarah revealed; “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin….” Umar was then called and it was recited to him.

    He said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine.

    Then the following verse of Surat an-Nisa’ was revealed: “O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged….” Thereafter the herald of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would call when the (congregational) prayer was performed: Beware, one who is drunk should not come to prayer. Umar was again called and it was recited to him).

    He said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine. This verse was revealed: “Will ye not then abstain?” Umar said: We abstained.

    5.b. Obviously, allah and his messenger allowed men to drink, even though it was looked down upon. IT WAS DISCOURAGED.

    6. The fact that there is so much conversation on the topic of Mansuhk, just that FACT, proves that abrogation did exist.

    7. Do you think that Ibn abbas was the inventor of this theory?

  23. For Ikram:

    After reading the Koran, Bukhari, Muslim, Malik Muwatta and Abu Daud. I came to my conclusions!

    What I meant was that at the time of Muhammad intoxicants of all kinds were banned, but they were all liquid form. I was discussing with ZA as to when the BAN was administered. Was it in Chapter 2, 4 or 5? Refer to my previouos post for further details.

    As far as abrogation goes, please refer to my previous post.

  24. October 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Imam Suyuti’s book Itqan is available in an online English translation, and his chapter dealing with abrogation is a pdf file at this link.
    I have also taken a local copy and placed it at this link.

    He found that a huge number of verses was being considered as abrogated and came to the conclusion that only 19 or 20 were abrogated. The question is: Did Suyuti have the authority to declare all those people before him as wrong?

    Then Shah Waliullah declared in his Fauz-ul-Kabir that out of these 20 or so verses, only 5 can be considered abrogated, and the others are not. Again, from where did he get the authority to declare those before him as wrong? And if they could reduce the number, first to 20, and then to 5, why can’t someone reduce it to zero?

    A study of the link given above (on which I foolishly wasted a lot of time) shows the disagreements and confusion prevailing about what is abrogated and what is not.

    Suyuti writes that there are many kinds of what are considered as abrogations which are not really an abrogation. For example, he says that when circumstances change, a verse applicable to those circumstances becomes ‘forgotten’, not abrogated:

    “Rather, it belongs to the made to forgetcategory, to which belongs every order that is meant to be executed whenever the circumstances so demand, but which gets moved elsewhere when those same circumstances are changed. This is not abrogation, … And that which has been deferred to some future time is not abrogated” (p. 3 in pdf file)

    He then mentions verses considered as abrogated by some but as not abrogated by others:

    P. 5:

    ” 2:3 and 2:254, which some say have been abrogated by the verse that prescribed zakat. But this is not the case.”

    (Note by ZA: Can you believe this absurdity? The verses which say “spend out of what Allah has given you” are said by some to be abrogated by the command to give zakat.)

    P. 5: “Some consider the verse ‘and speak kindly to people(2:83) abrogated but Ibn Hassar considered this incorrect, arguing instead that it is an account of the pledge taken from the Children of Israel; it is merely a report and not an abrogation.”

    (Note by ZA: Should we start being rude to people?)

    P. 5: “These, and other such verse that are qualified by clauses of exception or objective have been wrongly itemized as abrogations.”

    P. 6: “If therefore, we contend that the verse to take up arms does not abrogate the verses of forgiveness and generosity’, then most of the verses that have been lumped into this category will be excluded.”

    P. 6: “And according to some the statement of the Almighty (2:184) has been abrogated by (2:185). But others hold that it is still binding,”

    P. 7 “Whilst some say that the verse and be conscious of God to the full extent possible’ (3:102) is abrogated by the verse and be conscious of God the best you can’ (64:16), others maintain that it is still binding.”

    (Note by ZA: Is there no commonsense left? ‘Full extent possible’ abrogated by ‘the best you can’?)

    P. 7: “Some say that the verse and if they attend the distribution’ (4:8) has been abrogated whilst others say, no, people have simply neglected to apply it.”

    P. 8/9: “And some say that the verse: (60:11) has been abrogated by the ‘verse of the sword’. Others say it is abrogated by the verse of the spoils of war’ and others still, maintain that it is still binding.”

    His conclusion on page 9 is:

    “”These twenty one verses, give or take a few, are the ones that have been abrogated; no acceptable claim for the remaining verses’ abrogation can be made. This number drops to 19 however if, as is correct, the verse requiring permission to enter and the verse of distribution of inheritance are considered binding. … … People exaggerate the number of abrogations and add thereto countless verses.”

    On p. 11, we have an example where someone’s daughter told him he was wrong in considering one word (yes, just one word) from a verse as abrogated. The verse in question mentions “orphans, needy and captives”:

    “With regard to the verse: and they feed the indigent because of their love for Him’ (76:8) Hibat Allah b. Salama l-Darir maintained that the words and the prisoners of war’ which refers to the prisoners from among the pagans, were abrogated. Once, however, when that section was recited to him in the presence of his daughter she remarked: O! Father! You have erred!’ He asked: Why? She replied: Muslims are unanimous in their view that a prisoner must be fed and cannot be killed through starvation. He replied ‘You are correct.’ ”

    (Note by ZA: So the next generation was right and corrected the earlier generation!)

    On p. 12 he mentions three different views as to on whose authority a verse can be declared as abrogated:

    “In this regard there are two opposing views: the conservative view argues that even sound ahad traditions are not acceptable, and the liberal view accepts the rulings of the exegetes and the jurists. The correct view goes against both these views.”

    So there is no agreement as to which verses are abrogated and what principle we use to determine if a verse is abrogated or not. Many examples of abrogation are plainly absurd. On page 10 an example given is that as regards the verse 7:199 (“Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn away from the ignorant”), the first and the last command are abrogated but the middle (“enjoin”) is not!

    Regarding 4:43 (“go not near prayer when you are intoxicated till you know what you say, …”), Shah Waliullah certainly does not include it in his list of 5 abrogated verses, and as far as I can see Suyuti does not include it in his list of 20 abrogated verses (which he has presented in the form of a poem on page 9).

    I hope our readers will study this link to enjoy the fruits of the belief in abrogation!

  25. ZA: I appreciate the research that you have done. But this proves my overall point once again, and that is all the mujadids believed in some form of MANSUKH, and they never related to abrogating the Torah or the bible.

    Also, in terms of IBN ABBAS’ tafsir:

    Todd Lawson wrote that, Fortunatley one fact has recently come to light: the tanwir al miqbas is an abridgement by Al-Dinawari(died 308) of perhaps a Muhammad al Kalbi (died 146) tafsir. Kalbi referenced ibn abbas heavily.

    Andrew Rippin wrote this in his book “An examination in the Quran and its interpretative Tradition”


    I am sure that they also support the MANSUKH theory.

    I have listed them:

    1. ibn abbas
    2. Mujahid jabr al makki (died 104 a.h.)
    3. wahb ibn munabbih (died 114)
    4. qatada ibn di’ ama (died 117)
    5. al qasim ibn abi bazza (died 124)
    6. ismail ibn abd al rahman al suddi (died 127)
    7. jafar ibn muhammad al sadiq (died 148)
    8. abd al amlik b. abd al aziz ibn jurayh (died 149)
    9. mutaqatil b sulayman al balkhi (died 150)
    10. muhammad ibn ishaq (died 150)


    11. Abu muhammad abd allah b. muslim b. qutayba al dinawari (died 276)
    12. al qummi (died 309)

  26. Chapter 3               THE BEE

    In Chapter 16 verse 101 we have the following verse which 99.9% of all mujadids and scholars have claimed supports the abrogation theory. 

    “And when We bring one Sign(AYAH) in place of another — and Allah knows best what He reveals — they say, ‘Thou art but a fabricator.’ Nay, but most of them know not.”

    I was not able to find any hadith which explains this verse.  I think all scholars are unanimous on the idea that this chapter was revealed at Mecca.  I am not sure what verse had been abrogated at that stage in the development of Islam. 

    Muhammad Ali argued that it is absurd that any ruling had been abrogated at this point in Islam.  The ahmadis(q) argued along the same lines.

    Ibn abbas wrote:
    And when We exchange a verse in place of a [different] verse, by abrogating it and revealing another, for the welfare of [God’s] servants — and God knows best what He reveals — they say, that is, the disbelievers [say] to the Prophet (s): ‘You are just a fabricator’, a liar, making it up yourself. Nay, most of them do not know, the true nature of the Qur’ān and the benefit [to God’s servants] of abrogation.

    If I had access to all the tafsir’s from the early part of islam I would post their comments. 

  27. October 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    How Bashir comes to this figure of 99.9%, I don’t know. Here are some references.

    1. The link below is Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence by M. H. Kamali, Chapter Seven: Naskh (Abrogation). Read from under heading: The Argument Against Naskh.

    I quote some of it below:

    “As already stated, the ulema are not unanimous over the occurrence of naskh in the Qur’an. While al-Suyuti has claimed, in his Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur’an, twenty-one instances of naskh in the Qur’an, Shah Wali Allah (d. 1762) has only retained five of al-Suyuti’s twenty-one cases as genuine, stating that the rest can all be reconciled.[40. Subhi al-Salih (Mabahith, p.280) records the view that only ten of al-Suyuti’s twenty-one instances of naskh in the Quran are genuine and that all the rest can be reconciled.] Another scholar, Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (d. 934) has, on the other hand, denied the incidence of abrogation in the Qur’an altogether.[41. Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.155; Denffer, ‘Ulum, p. 110.] The majority of ulema have nevertheless acknowledged the incidence of naskh in the Qur’an on the authority of the Qur’an itself. This is the conclusion that the majority have drawn from the relevant Qur’anic passages. However, it will be noted that the counter-argument is also based on the same Qur’anic passages which have been quoted in support of naskh.”

    2. The link below is  Usul al-Fiqh by Shah Abdul Hannan:

    I quote a part of it below:

    “There are scholars who do not agree that there is abrogation in the Quran (please see in Kamali’s book and argument against Naskh in the Quran). They say that in 2:106 and 16:106, reference of “Ayah” is not to abrogation within the Quran but abrogation of earlier scriptures by the Quran. They also say that the ‘so-called’ conflict in the Quran can all be reconciled. Muhammad Asad has also mentioned in his Tafsir that there is no Naskh in the Quran. Abdul Hamid Abu Suleman feels that it was wrong on the part of earlier Ulama to turn Naskh into a doctrine of permanent validity instead of understanding as the circumstance of history (Ref. ‘Islamic Theory of International Relations’, by Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman, a IIIT’s publication. Please also read the discussion in the book by Kamali on Naskh). Abu Sulayman suggests that Naskh’s application should be limited to clear cases only, such as, change of Qiblah.”

    3. This link is to Ulum-ul-Quran by Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed, chapter 15:

    Extracts from it:

    “Some Muslim scholars refused to accept `naskh’ and declared that `naskh’ does not go with the holiness (taqaddus) of the Almighty. They argued that Allah’s words are too authoritative, to be considered abrogated in human opinion.

    Abu Muslim Isfahani (d. 332/944) was the first one who refused to accept the ‘doctrine of abrogation.’ According to him abrogated ayaat were those Divine Messages which were found in earlier Books (Taurat, Injeel etc.)”

    4. Muhammad Asad on 16:102:

    “I.e., by substituting the message of the Qur’an for the earlier dispensations – and not, as some Muslim scholars maintain, “abrogating” one Qur’anic verse and replacing it by another.”
    Asad on 2:106:

    “The principle laid down in this passage – relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an – has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah (“message”) occurring in this context is also used to denote a “verse;” of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been “abrogated” by God’s command before the   revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion – which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript – deleting one passage and replacing it with another – 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”. At the root of the so-called “doctrine of abrogation” may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another: a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been “abrogated”. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the “doctrine of abrogation” as to which, and how many, Qur’an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the “doctrine of abrogation” has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must be rejected.”

  28. October 3rd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    1. Abdullah Yusuf Ali says under 16:101 about the accusation of forgery against the Holy Prophet:

    “…It is not fair to charge a man of God with forgery because the Message as revealed to him is in a different form from that revealed before…”

    So the changing of “ayat” in this verse means the change from previous scriptures.

    Under 2:106 he writes about the word “ayat” in this verse:

    “If we take it in a general sense, it means that God’s Message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran.”

    He first gives the interpretation that abrogation refers to abrogation of previous scriptures. Then he mentions “some commentators” as applying aborgation to Quranic verses, but “some” doesn’t seem to amount to 99.9%.

    2. Ahmad Ali in his English translation of the Quran translates 2:106 as follows:

    “When We cancel a message (sent to an earlier prophet)…”

    So he has inserted his view within the translation.

    Ahmad Ali has few footnotes, but he has a note here saying:

    “The context clearly shows that this refers to commands sent to earlier prophets, and not to Prophet Muhammad. See verses preceding and following this verse. See also 16:101.”

    The word “not” above is in italics in the original footnote.


    Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has thoroughly refuted the entire theory of abrogation over several pages in his Urdu commentary of the Quran. In his English book Essays on the life of Mohammed he quotes the “abrogation” verse and the one before it and writes:

    “The above passage from the Koran does not, we think, imply that one verse of the Koran was cancelled by another, but that it merely means that God can give better commandments — that is, laws — than He has given before; moreover, it is relative to the Jews, whose first given laws were somewhat altered by those given to Mohammed.” (p. 20 of the Essay on the Holy Koran).

  29. “Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it. Knowest thou not that Allah is Possessor of power over all things?” (a) (Qur’an 2:106)

    Maulana Muhammad Ali writes in his commentary to the Holy Qur’an:

    106a. Reading the verse (2:106) under discussion in the light of the context, it is clear that the Jews are addressed here. The two previous sections deal, more or less, with a particular Jewish objection to the revelation of the Prophet, viz., that they could not accept a new revelation which was not granted to an Israelite. This is plainly stated in vv. 90 and 91.

    [“Evil is that for which they sell their souls – that they should deny that which Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace whomsoever of His servants He pleases; so they incur wrath upon wrath. And there is an abasing chastisement for the disbelievers” (Qur’an 2:90)
    “And when it said to them, Believe in that which Allah as revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us. And they deny what is besides that, while it is the Truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah’s prophets before (this) if you were believers” (Qur’an 2:91).]

    By saying that they believed in that which was revealed to them, they asserted that they could accept only a revelation granted to an Israelite. The reply to this is that the revelation of the Holy Prophet is the truth verifying that which is contained in their own Scriptures, the reference being to the prophecies of the advent of the Holy Prophet contained in Deut. 18:15-18 and other places.

    The same subject is continued, the Jews being addressed throughout. Their objection was: Why was another revelation sent down to Muhammad, and why was a law containing new commandments promulgated? That objection was to be answered. The answer is given partly in v. 105, and partly in the verse under discussion.

    “Neither those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, nor the polytheists, like that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord. And Allah chooses whom He pleases for His Mercy; and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace” (Qur’an 2:105).

    In the former of these they are told that Allah chooses whom He pleases for His revelation. In the latter, that if one law (i.e. the Jewish law) was abrogated, one better than it was given through the Holy Prophet. It should be noted that the new law is here stated to be better than the one abrogated or like it. It is a fact that though the law of the Qur’an is decidedly superior to and more comprehensive than the previous laws in most respects, yet there are many points of likeness in the two. Hence the words one like it are added. In the verse that follows, attention is called to the laws of nature as prevailing in the universe. Is it not true that the old order in nature gives place to a new one, the inferior to the better? It was therefore quite natural that the Mosaic law, which was in the main given for a particular people in a particular age, and suited only their requirements, should give place to a new and universal law, the law of Islam. The old law had been partly forgotten, and what remained was now abrogated to give place to one better and in certain matters one like it. It will thus be seen that the reference here is to the abrogation of the Jewish law, the statement being really an answer to the objection of the Jews.

    That some of the Qur’anic verses were abrogated by others, though a generally accepted doctrine, is due to a misconception of the words of this verse. The word ayat occurring here has been wrongly understood to mean a verse of the Qur’an. Similar words occur elsewhere:

    “And when We change a message (ayat) for a message (ayat) — and Allah knows best what He reveals — they say: Thou art only a forger” (16:101).

    This is a Makkan revelation and it is an undisputed fact, admitted by all upholders of abrogation in the Qur’an, that there was no abrogation at Makkah, because the details of the law were not revealed there. Therefore the word ayat, occurring there twice, could only mean a message or a communication from God, and the first message meant the previous scriptures and by the second message was meant the Qur’an. The interpretation adopted by the commentators generally is not based on any saying of the Prophet; it is their own opinion. Nor is there a single report traceable to the Prophet that such and such a verse was abrogated. A companion’s opinion that he considered a certain verse to have been abrogated by another could not carry the least weight. It was the Prophet only on whose authority any verse was accepted as being a part of the Holy Qur’an, and it was he only on whose authority any verse could be considered as having been abrogated. But there is not a single hadith of the Prophet speaking of abrogation.

    Another consideration which shows the erroneousness of the doctrine that any verse of the Qur’an was abrogated by another is the hopeless disagreement of the upholders of this view. In the first place there is no agreement as to the number of the verses which are alleged to have been abrogated; while some accept no more than five verses to be abrogated, others carry the number to hundreds. This shows that the view is based simply on conjecture. Secondly, if one commentator holds a certain verse to be abrogated, another calls this an erroneous view. In Bukhari especially do we find opposite views cited side by side. What happened really was this that when a commentator could not reconcile one verse with another, he held the verse to be abrogated by the other, but another who, giving deeper thought, was able to effect a reconciliation between the two, rejected abrogation. This seems to be the basis on which the theory of abrogation of Qur’anic verses rests, and this basis is demolished by the Holy Qur’an when it says:

    “Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy” (4:82).

    There are no discrepancies in the Qur’an, and it is want of meditation on it that is responsible for the theory of abrogation.

  30. October 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    Rahmatullah Tariq has written an Urdu book in 1973, Mansukh-ul-Quran, of about 900 pages, devoted to refuting the doctrine of abrogation in the Quran. It is so long because he has discussed 315 verses individually which are alleged to be abrogated, and has shown in each case that the verse is not abrogated.

    The 315 verses are arrived at by considering all verses that are, to the author’s knowledge, regarded by someone or other as abrogated. It is not meant that there existed any person who regarded all the 315 verses as abrogated.

    I am making available here as a pdf file (~2.9 MB) just the first part of about 100 pages where he discusses the issue in general.

    The entire book is about 22 MB. If anyone is interested I can let them have the pdf file for it.

  31. ZA: thanks for the research work. Personally, I would want to read the research from a nuetral source, i.e. a christian researcher. And I cant read urdu.

    I ordered this book to help me learn more:

    Back to the points of discussion:

    1. The scholars that you mentioned are recent writers on Islam. I strickened this study as pre-sir syed ahmad khan. I am highly concerned that recent muslims are trying to fix Islam. I feel that muslims nowadays are trying to give Islam a face-lift. I read m. ali’s books before I studied Islam, m. ali gave me a principle in terms of prophethood, he wrote that a consensus of opinion could not be challenged.

    1.a. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan is the father of progressive thought in Islam, he was the one who wanted to change the beliefs of muslims in at least 4 matters:

    1. the miraaj was a dream
    2. jesus died
    3. abrogation didnt happen
    4. jihad didnt apply in british india

    1.b. Before Sir Syed how many people mujadids/mufassirs supported abrogation? Can I say 90% instead of 99%. Thats still a very high STAT. My point is that there was a consensus of opinion!!!

    1.c. Muhammad ali argued that in terms of prophethood, there was such a consensus of opinion that it could not be challenged. I AM USING THE SAME LOGIC!!!!!!

    2. The mutazlis were the first group of muslims to reject the theory of abrogation. Did allah guide them and not the rest of the uMmah?

    3. I have never heard of Abu Muslim Isfahani (d. 332/944). I doubt that this guy is a mujadid. Did allah guide him and not the other scholars. What did he write about Jesus’ second coming? IS he a credible writer?

    ZA: You need to find the smoking gun, who was the person who invented the theory of abrogation. Was it ibn Abbas.

    If you condemn ibn abbas as the inventor of the theory of abrogation, jesus’ return, and many other inventions, then I will leave you alone.

    But you have to condemn this guy. If not ibn abbas then who invented all of these theories?

    To summarize my OVERALL point: Muslim scholars believed in some type of MANSUKH inside the Koran. They argued over how mnay verses, they argued over frequency not principal.

    Essentially, upwards of 90% of all muslims found contradiction in the Koran. This is a surprising discovery! What was the purpose of the Koran if the top muslims of every were to not understand it. Muslims turned the Koran into a contradicting book, instead of a perfect book. So why did allah send even one mujadid?

  32. Abrogation clearly seems to be an extra-Quranic thought and that too of minds that instead of using Quran as an applied text, spent time in pursuit of polemic just like Christianity which refined itself to counting the angels dancing on a pin head or proving earth as physical center of God’s creation.  If those Christians could be brought back to life, they will swear that they spent time in the most noble cause.

    Even though this thread of Abrogation is probably the longest ever on this blog, but what did it prove other than historical nonsense.

    Whereas Quran is quite clear about itself:

    56:75. As to me, I swear by the places and times of the revelation of the portions of the Qur’ân;
    56:76. And behold! it is a mighty oath, if you only care to know;
    56:77. That this is most surely a Holy Qur’ân (bestowing bounteous blessings of God),
    56:78. In a Book well preserved (in all its purity).
    56:79. No one can achieve true insight into it except those who are purified (by leading righteous lives).
    56:80. (It is) a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
    56:81. Is it this (Divine) discourse that you are the deniers of?
    56:82. And do you make the denial of it your lot?

    If Abrogation were a fact and that too a useful one, then Quran would had proven it itself, whereas it not the case:

    39:27. And We have set forth for the people all sorts of excellent and useful proofs in this Qur’ân that they may take heed,
    39:28. (We have revealed the) Qur’ân in Arabic, there is no deviation from rectitude (in it and is free from all flaws), that they may guard against sufferings.

    Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that Quran has abrogated verses in it. It would be very interesting to see such a slimmed version of the Book, which contrary to Allah’s undertaking has not been preserved as such for past fifteen centuries. Whereas Quran states differently and historical evidence proves it:

    15:9. Verily, it was We, We Ourself Who have revealed this Reminder (- the Qur’ân); and it is We Who are, most certainly, its Guardian.[Nooruddin]

    i.e. Quran on any shelf in the world today is the same as the one which was in possession of Muhmmad PBUH at the time of death.  Allah keeps His promise.
    On the contrary, if “Theory of Abrogation” stands correct, then lo and behold!  just imagine the combinatorics and permutations of 315 variably missing verses leading to thousands if not millions of different versions of Quran. How ridiculous. LOL.

  33. Bashir says he would rather accept “neutral sources, i.e. Christian researchers”. But these “neutral sources” want to prove that the Holy Prophet was an opportunist and unprincipled person who changed his teachings and revelations according to circumstances. But he claims that the sources quoted by me have an underlying motive for denying abrogation because “they are trying to give Islam a face-lift”. What about the underlying motives of his neutral sources?

    Why isn’t Muhammad Asad, a Jew originally, a neutral source who has rejected abrogation?

    1b. The previous mujaddids Suyuti and Shah Waliullah clearly laid the basis for the complete refutation of abrogation. Each reduced the abrogated verses to a small fraction (hundreds to 20, and 20 to 5) of what was believed before him. Most likely, this was sufficient as holding the fort against abrogation in their times. It could be said that the chain of mujaddids as a whole destroyed abrogation step by step.

    1c. It is a complete distortion to suggest that Maulana Muhammad Ali argued that the finality of prophethood is established because of consensus of opinion of commentators/scholars etc. and such consensus can’t be challenged! He argued that this belief is established from the Quran and statements of the Holy Prophet. Then, when certain people claimed that later scholars had not believed in finality of prophethood, he wrote, as an additional argument, that in fact they did believe in it by consensus.

    Regarding a different issue, the Maulana wrote in the book The Religion of Islam: “A doctrine so plainly and so forcefully taught in the Holy Quran and the Hadith stands in need of no support from the great and learned men among the Muslims” (ch. Iman or Faith). That was his principle.

    It is quite bizarre to find Bashir writing that: Did Allah only guide a small group and not the whole ummah or guided only a person not other scholars? But that is how all reform has come into the world, starting with a small group or even one person! (Even in science, often one man has risen to correct a prevailing concept accepted by almost all other learned ones.) Why hasn’t Allah ever guided the whole of humanity to true Islam?

    Bashir asks, what did the man who rejected abrogation believe about the second coming of Jesus? Bashir applies to us the novel principle that if we quote a source as agreeing with us on one issue, it means we should agree with him on everything else. So when I quote a source on any issue whatsoever, Bashir asks: what did he believe about the death of Jesus? Does this principle apply to Bashir himself? When he quotes someone in his support, does he agree with each and everything they say? If he quotes an atheist scholar as saying that there is abrogation in the Quran, am I entitled to ask: But what does he believe about God!

    As to Bashir asking us to carry out a Senator Joseph Macarthy style witchhunt to identify who originated the wrong doctrines, and to condemn them, he may like to note that: (1) companions may have been taken out of context later on, (2) it is said that they used the word naskh in a different meaning from cancellation, (3) reports attributed to them were not scrutinised like those attributed to the Holy Prophet, and (4) in hadith books we find companions challenging the views of the highest ranking companions.

    Read Volume 2, Book 23, Number 375 in Bukhari.

    One of the daughters of ‘Uthman died at Mecca. We went to attend her funeral procession. Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn Abbas were also present. I sat in between them (or said, I sat beside one of them. Then a man came and sat beside me.) ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said to ‘Amr bin ‘Uthman, “Will you not prohibit crying as Allah’s Apostle has said, ‘The dead person is tortured by the crying of his relatives.?” Ibn Abbas said, “Umar used to say so.” Then he added narrating, “I accompanied Umar on a journey from Mecca till we reached Al-Baida. There he saw some travelers in the shade of a Samura (A kind of forest tree). He said (to me), “Go and see who those travelers are.” So I went and saw that one of them was Suhaib. I told this to ‘Umar who then asked me to call him. So I went back to Suhaib and said to him, “Depart and follow the chief of the faithful believers.” Later, when ‘Umar was stabbed, Suhaib came in weeping and saying, “O my brother, O my friend!” on this ‘Umar said to him, “O Suhaib! Are you weeping for me while the Prophet said, “The dead person is punished by some of the weeping of his relatives?” Ibn Abbas added, “When ‘Umar died I told all this to Aisha and she said, ‘May Allah be merciful to Umar. By Allah, Allah’s Apostle did not say that a believer is punished by the weeping of his relatives. But he said, Allah increases the punishment of a non-believer because of the weeping of his relatives.” Aisha further added, “The Quran is sufficient for you (to clear up this point) as Allah has stated: ‘No burdened soul will bear another’s burden.’ ” (35.18). Ibn Abbas then said, “Only Allah makes one laugh or cry.” Ibn Umar did not say anything after that.

    Note that here Aishah said: “‘May Allah be merciful to Umar. By Allah, Allah’s Apostle did not say that “. She didn’t say, let’s condemn Ibn Abbas and Umar. Then she said “”The Quran is sufficient for you”. The statement reported by Ibn Abbas from Umar, who attributed it to the Holy Prophet, was contrary to the teachings of the Quran. Aishah rejected it on that basis, without carrying out an inquest into how such great men managed to keep repeating a wrong statement.

  34. Ikram, thanks for the input, I appreciate your ideas in this discussion, sometimes I wish that i had more people to discuss these ideas with.  I will respond to my brother ZA on my lunch break, later on today. 

    I contain no biases, I am open-minded, I want to learn Islam exactly as it is. 

    I studied the context of the suras that you mentioned.  Here are my research results.

    1.  Chapter 56 belongs to the early meccan period (See m. ali 1917 edition)

    1.a. Sir William Muir writes: THIRD PERIOD.—From the Commencement of Mahomet’s public Ministry, to the Abyssinian Emigration

    2.  Chapter 39 was revealed very early at mecca (see m. ali 1917 edition)

    2.a.  Rodwell and Muir think that this was a later meccan revelation.  Nonetheless, 3 scholars think that this was revealed at mecca.

    3.  Chapter 15 is also of meccan origin(see m. ali 1917 edition)

    3.a.  Muir gives it the: FOURTH PERIOD.—From the Sixth to the Tenth year of Mahomet’s ministry.  Nonetheless a meccan sura.

    So all of these verse that you quote were revealed before 2:106.  All of these verse were revealed at a time when the koran was in fact PURE. 

    Maybe, and I say this hesitantly, maybe up until the medina period abrogation had not taken place.  All possibilities must be examined thoroughly without any biases.


  35. October 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
    From Zahid Aziz:

    As a point of information, John Burton, the author of the book referred to by Bashir, has written an article in the Encyclopaedia of the Quran on abrogation. Here is the link to the article.

    This article contains some comments which indicate there were people not accepting abrogation, and that there were arguments between the two sides. I quote the following:

    “To Muslim scholars, the abrogation of Judaism and Christianity by Islam was obvious, although internal abrogation remained less so. The latter had to be vigorously defended by appeal to the analogy of external abrogation, to verses in the Qurʾān and by reference to alleged instances of abrogation.”

    “To some minds, the idea that one verse from the Qurʾān abrogated another suggested that divine will changes and divine knowledge develops and this was held to contravene basic theological tenets. Those who allowed that some verses of the Qurʾān abrogated others, responded that no Muslim ever objected to the notion that Islam had abrogated Christianity and Judaism.”

    “The claim that abrogation, understood as the cancellation of a legal ordinance, was solidly rooted in the revelation was connected with the appropriation of the qurʾānic root n-s-kh as a technical term. The root occurs in no fewer than four verses which the classical exegetes treated as circumstantially unrelated contexts to be interpreted independently. That prevented scholars from agreeing on an unequivocal etymology and definition of “naskh” and led to the consequent emergence of a host of irreconcilable theories of abrogation.”

    “Still some scholars had difficulty in accepting the mechanism of abrogation as worthy of God.”

    “The proponents of abrogation claimed that God was not referring to the text of the Qurʾān, but to the rulings conveyed by the text … Less easy to explain was the reason that in these cases God did not suppress the abrogated texts to avoid confusion.”

  36. For ZA:

    In my research, if I use a source of information, I deem everything that they present as correct. When Bukhari compiled his masterpiece(which nowadays is being discredited in terms of Apostacy and abrogation), Bukhari wrote that he would not use hadith from someone who lied in common conversation.

    I am using the same standards. I will not reference any person who I think is lost in terms of studying the Koran. Any writer who believes that the Koran contradicts itself, i.e. abrogation, should be considered as lost in terms of the understanding the Koran, at least by the ahmadis(q&l). Allah did not give the any knowledge of the Koran whatsoever,

    I believe that Suyuti, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, ibn Arabi and all the mujadids were not lost in terms of Koranic knowledge. I believe that Allah guided them more than any other muslim.

    Remember this study is before the Sir Syed Khan era, i.e. 1870.

    1. I admit, finding a nuetral source could be borderline impossible. Christian writers have their motives/biases and muslim writers have their own issues.

    1.a. I value the Christian writers because I feel that their scope of research is much broader than muslim writers. For example, MUIR researched Ibn Hisham and Tabari before any muslim of that era. He showed many things that muslim writers were trying to avoid.

    1.b. I am using a research approach that combines factual data from all credible sources. I started from scratch, I have no motives. I just want to learn the Koran of 2 eras. Pre-sir syed, and after.

    2. Muhammad asad was born in 1900 or so. I am not including him into this study. He falls into a different category as I have explained previously.

    3. The mujadids did not slowly but surely break the idea of MANSUKH. They agreed to it in principal, they argued over usage.

    3.a. I believe that all the mujadids(including Suyuti and Wali-ullah) believed that Chapter 9 verse 5 superceded all regulations relating to war. This idea was not argued.

    4. I apologize if I misunderstood Hazrat M. ali. I thought he agrued along the lines of “consensus of opinion”. I will have to re-read “Prophethood in Islam”. I will have to double check my sources.

    5. Yes, I find it very bizarre that Allah did not straighten out the Jesus tale as told by 13+ mujadids, or the abrogation tale told by them, or the other ideas that they wrong about. I FIND THIS VERY ODD!!

    6. I think an atheist’s research can be appreciated. He is giving us his research. A specialist on islam, i.e. a mujadid, his opinions carry different value. The ideas of a mujadid out-weigh the research of an atheist. A mujadid is guided by Allah, an atheist is not.

    7. I understand your point about new ideas. Scientifically, albert einstein presented new theories, but he was able to prove them scientifically, without a shadow of doubt. HMGA has not been able to do that. If HMGA was able to acheive that, then the whole planet woudl be ahmadi by now.

    7.a. Einstein also errored. He wrote that our Milky Way Galaxy was static. He wrote that nothing else existed. He was proven wrong, hubble created a telescope which detected Andromeda. Einstein called this the biggest blunder of his career.

    8. Joseph Macarthy style witchhunt:

    I think that HMGA should have informed as to when things changed in Islam. I think we have the right to know. Who invented this new islam? Where is the smoking gun. I looked for a smoking gun and couldnt find one.

    9. I think that the AAIIL and the AMi should take definite stances in terms of aisha, ibn abbas, zubair, ali, 13+ mujadids.

    10. Aisha concerns me in terms of her relationship with Hazrat Ali. We all know that she fought a JIHAD with the khalifa of the time. I have always had a watchful eye of her. Also, Hazrat Ali told the HP to get rid of her in terms of dissapearance, there was a koranic verse that cleared her, but, the bad blood continued between them.

  37. @”Bashir:
    “I think that HMGA should have informed as to when things changed in Islam. I think we have the right to know. Who invented this new islam? Where is the smoking gun. I looked for a smoking gun and couldnt find one.”
    It was NOT HMGA duty to inform us when things change in Islam. He informed us what Allah told him. He informed us what was his duty. 120 years later we have no right to question his duty/ mission.
    There are issues that HMGA did not resolve:
    Sort out the unauthentic/ weak Hadiths.
    Names of all previous Mujaddids.
    May be NEXT Mujjaddid takes up the issues that you want to resolve.
    We look forward to Mujjaddid(s) of 15th Islamic Century. It will be interesting to see what he will resolve. May be he revives Islamic economic system or resolve morality issues. HMGA used modern (now archaic) postal system, and telegraph. New Mujjaddid(s) will use Internet and cell phones or even some things more advance than these.
    It’s been almost 30 years since 15th century started. Only God knows when we will hear about his arrival!

  38. Rashid: You have very valid points. I appreciate your input in this discussion.

    In terms of the “escape” of jesus I think the AAIIL and the AMI should research early Islam and find out when things went wrong.

    From my all of my research I havent seen where Allah told HMGA in terms of Jesus’ escape. Allah told HMGA that jesus was dead but didnt elaborate on the details.

    Please understand, the muslims are claiming that Jesus escaped before being put on the cross. HMGA wrote in his book MASIH HINDUSTAN MAIN that Jesus escaped after the the alleged crucifiction.

    These ideas are very much different from each other. HMGA also claimed that the companions of the HP knew of this idea.

  39. @Bashir:
    Regardless, Jesus escaped, got kidnapped, got swapped, or got hijacked.
    Bottom line: He did NOT get crucified; only “crucificed” (put on the cross).
    It does not matter who, when, and why created this fiction.
    Jesus of Nazareth is d-e-a-d. Period!

  40. Although the whereabouts of Jesus belong to another thread, I will briefly write my thoughts on the matter:

    Oddly enough, Todd Lawson also wrote that Jesus was dead based on his research of the Koran. I may be the first ahmadi to have found this. I have a detailed review in the works that I will present shortly. I am still reading his book…..

    It must be understood that just the fact that Jesus died doesnt dis-prove the theories from the mujadids and the mufassirs. They interpreted the Koran as best as they could. They had limited info to work with.

    The one fact that is overwhelming is that all the muajadids and mufassirs believed that Jesus would physically return to this earth. The nuzul was defined as a physical decent. This was the foundation to understanding any ideas in terms of Jesus’ escape. This was a fact that was embedded deep into the hearts of all specialist on Islam.

  41. There is a discussion at a beliefnet forum regarding the theory of abrogation that might be of interest to some of the readers here. A poster who defends the theory of abrogation has argued that Al-Azhar only endorses some of the contents of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s book, The Religion of Islam, but not all of it.

  42. June 6th, 2011 at 5:35 am
    From Zahid Aziz:

    What Al-Azhar do, as they did with The Religion of Islam, is to certify that the book does not contain anything objectionable from the Islamic point of view, or misrepresent Islam. They don’t mean that they agree with all the interpretations given in the book, but agree that they are valid according to Islamic standards of deriving beliefs. In fact, Al-Azhar’s own scholars themselves hold differing points of view on these issues.

  43. Thank you for the clarification!

  44. Consequences of accepting theory of abrogation in Holy Quran.
    Those Muslims who hold belief and propagate that Holy Quran has abrogated its previous injunctions and teaching. And what is abrogated has been replaced with newer valid teachings and permissions. They do not realize that with their understanding they are supporting opponents of Holy Quran, Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS and Islam.
    A well-know US Jewish opponent of Islam is Robert Spencer. He builds the case that Holy Quran incites Muslims to commit violence, kill non-Muslims, militarily spread Islam in the world and gain temporal dominance over non-Muslims, by quoting Holy Quran Chapter 2; Verse 106. According to him all verses that teach peace and tolerance where revealed when Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS was powerless i.e. in Makkah. But as he gained power and authority i.e. Madinah, all peaceful teachings were abrogated under 2:106.
    Please watch following documentary. Please pay attention to 18 minutes onwards.
    Islam: What The West Needs To Know
    My Question to Muslim proponents of Theory of Abrogation in Islam:
    How will you answer the accusation of Robert Spencer?