The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement Blog

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Qur’an were revelations from God, why was it – they asked – that the injunctions found in the earlier Scriptures had been replaced by new ones in the Qur’an?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: http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/002-5.htm

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.”

ABU DAUD

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.”

THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER INSTANCES OF THE ABROGATION, I HOPE THIS IS ENOUGH.

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]

WHY DIDNT THE HOLY PROPHET SAY IT?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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”

LAWSON QUOTES 12 TAFSIR’S FROM ISLAMS EARLY PERIOD THAT SUPPORT THE SUBSTITUTION THEORY OF JESUS.

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)

THEN THERE IS A 120 YEAR GAP IN TAFSIRS

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

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.

http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/4983-uloom-al-quran-naskh-abrogation.html

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:

http://witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/SH_Usul/Command_Prohibitions_Nask.htm

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:

http://www.netnavigate.com/hasan/studyquran/ch15.html

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.”

“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.

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:

http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Islamic-Law-Theories-Abrogation/dp/0748601082/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254782955&sr=8-1

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?

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.

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.”

@”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!

@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!

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.

Thank you for the clarification!