Message for Muslims

The Doctrine of Abrogation

This is a doctrine which is spurned by many Muslims who believe it reflects most unfavourably on the supposed textual perfection of the Quran, but one that is generally accepted by the more conservative Muslims and orthodox maulanas.  The doctrine is based fairly and squarely on the teaching of the Quran itself, in particular the following verse:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar” (Al Baqarrah 2.106)

In the early days of Islam this text was taken to mean that parts of the Quran could become mansukh (abrogated) while other fresh revelations, the naskh texts, were sent down to replace them. Both the great commentators al-Baidawi and Zamakhshari taught emphatically that the abrogated verses should no longer be recited and that any laws based on them were to be regarded as annulled. It was generally believed that the abrogated verses were deleted from the Quran by Gabriel though in many cases both the original text and the one abrogating it are said to have been retained and are still part of the Quran text.

There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Quran does teach an abrogation of the ayat of Allah and, as this very word is used in the book for its own texts, the interpretation that it was actual verses of the Quran that were abrogated cannot be challenged on the grounds of exegetical fairness or probability. The word ayat is a very common Quranic word usually meaning the “signs” of Allah (that is, his supernatural or other portents for mankind), but it is quite obvious that it cannot be these that are said to have been abrogated. The text can only refer to revelations of scripture; it cannot refer to historical signs once these have occurred as a warning to the nations. Muslim scholars are well aware of this and the only question then is, which scriptures are in fact being spoken of here?

Modern Muslim scholars who deny that any of the verses of the Quran have been abrogated teach instead that this text refers to the revelations of Allah to the Jews and Christians beforehand. This interpretation is unacceptable as the Quran nowhere specifically uses the word ayat to describe the texts of the Taurat and the Injil, nor does it suggest that these previous scriptures were ever abrogated. On the contrary the Quran claims to be a scripture “confirming what went before it” (Al-Imran 3:3), namely the Taurat and the Injil which are specifically mentioned in the next clause. The Quran thus is said not to be the means of abrogating the previous revelations but rather the very opposite, namely of establishing them. Elsewhere the Jews are expressly commanded to judge by what is written in their scripture rather than come to Muhammad for judgment (Al-Mai’dah 5.43) and the Christians are commanded to do likewise (Al-Mai’dah 5.47). In addition both the Jews and the Christians are called upon to stand fast by the Taurat and the Injil respectively and all that their Lord had revealed to them (Al-Mai’dah  5.68).

The abrogation of which the Quran speaks, therefore, cannot refer to the previous scriptures and can only refer to the texts of the Quran itself, the interpretation universally placed on the verse in the earliest days of Islam. The problem for modern Muslim writers is that the Quran claims to proceed from a “preserved tablet” (Al-Buruj 85.22) and the question obviously arises – if parts of the Quran have been abrogated and eliminated, were they on the original heavenly tablet or not? If they were, then the Quran

today is not an exact replica of the text on that tablet for they could not have been removed from it, the Quran being regarded as Allah’s eternal speech. If they were not on the tablet, however, how did they come to be delivered to Muhammad as part of the text? We are right back at the original popular sentiment that the Quran has been preserved perfectly to the last dot and letter by Allah himself, nothing varied, added, omitted or, in consequence, “abrogated”. To maintain this popular hypothesis modern Muslim writers thus have to resort to a clearly unacceptable interpretation of Al-Baqarrah 2.106, one which cannot be derived ex facie from the text, in preference over the obvious and more reasonable interpretations of the early historians of Islam, namely that parts of the Quran text itself have been abrogated.

The doctrine is unpalatable to thinking Muslims for other reasons, for example it represents Allah as a divine author who revokes his earlier announcements as though he had cause to change his mind or had, in time, discovered a better course of action. Nonetheless the text must be taken to mean what it was originally intended to mean, not what modern Muslim writers would like to force it to mean according to their own inclinations.

There are other passages in the Quran which clearly support the obvious interpretation, such as the following text:

“when we substitute one revelation for another and God knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.” An-Nahl 16.101

This verse quite clearly refers to the substitution and elimination of texts of the Quran itself for it does not say that Allah replaces one kitab (the Taurat or the Injil, for example) with another, but rather that he substitutes one ayah for another ayah and, as we have seen, in the Quran this refers to the verses of the book itself and not to the previous revelations.

Extract from ‘Jam al Quran ‘ by John Gilchrist

* * * * * * * * * *

Examples of the Doctrine of Abrogation

A) Abrogation in Human Activities and Relationships

Here are two examples where laws governing human activities and relationships are changed. In one case the law was made stricter and in the other more relaxed.

1) Wine

In this Meccan sura revealed a few years before the Hjira there is a list of beverage blessings starting with water and milk, and ending with honey. Included in this list is the following:

“And from the fruit of the date-palm and the vine, ye get out wholesome drink and food: behold, in this also is a sign for those who are wise.” (Sura Al-Nahl 16 :66-69)

Wine, here, is regarded as a sign or proof of God’s interest and provision for us.

Later from 2 A. H, we read:

“They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say; ‘In them is great sin and some profit for men; But the sin is greater than the profit.’” Al-Baqara 2:219,

This verse discourages the use of wine, but does not give an absolute command to abstain from it, which is also true of the following passage from 5-6 AH, where we read:

“O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged (through drink), until ye can understand all that ye say,”  (Al-Nisa’ The Women 4 :43)

But then from a sura dating from 10 AH, we find:

“O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divin ation by ) arrows, are an abomination, of Satan’s handwork: eschew such, that ye may prosper, Satan’s plan is to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?”(Al -Maidah  5:90,91)

These two verses are a strong prohibition using two commands, “eschew” (put them aside) and “abstain” from them. Therefore this last revelation from 10 AH has removed any ambiguities or doubt that rested in the earlier verses.

Dr. Muhammed Abdul Rauf, makes this same point in his book Al-Quran – Introduction and Sample Texts.(Washington DC; Islamic Center p 16). ‘When we as Muslims, seek to learn this (chronological order of the revelations), our aim is more than academic. The dating of a passage; may be significant in making inferences related to the Quranic guidance. When we learn. e. g., that 4:43 which implies the prohibition of drinking wine when the time of prayer approaches, receded 5:90 which stipulates absolute prohibition of wine, we realise that the prohibition of drinking wine is extended to all times. Therefore, the study of this subject was an important pursuit since early times; and an adequate knowledge of it is one of the necessities for the students of Islamic Law.’

2) Marriage

In Sura AI-Baqqarah 2:221, from 2 AH we read :

“Do not marry unbelieving woman (idolaters) until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an idolater (or polytheist) even though she allure you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe. A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever even though he allure you. Unbelievers only beckon you to the fire.” (AI-Baqqarah 2:221)

This same idea is repeated in AH 5 or 6, where it says:

“If any of you does not have the money to marry a believing free woman he may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess” (Al-Nisa 4:25).

The teaching here is very clear that both men, and women should marry only believers because the unbeliever may lead one to unbelief and the fire of hell. But four years later in 10 AH the rule is changed and we read:

“Chaste women who are believers (Muslims) and chaste women from those to whom the Book came before your time (Jews and Christians), may be taken in marriage”    (Al Mai’dah 5:5)

This rule has now been broadened to include Jewish and Christian women as lawful wives.

B) Abrogation of Changes in the Form of Worship

Another area where we might expect to find changes is in the ceremonies of worship how to pray, for example. In fact, we find an example of that from the year AH 2. The Qibla, or direction toward which one should pray was changed from Jerusalem to the sacred mosque of Mecca. We read :

“The fools among the people will say : ‘What has turned them from their Qibla towards which they used to face?’ Say : to God belongs both the East and West…. and we appointed the Qibla toward which you used to face so that we might know those who follow the Apostle from those who turn on their heels. The change is a difficulty, but not to those who God guides…. but we will have thee turn to a Qibla that will please thee. Turn then thy face toward the sacred Mosque.” (Al-Baqqarah 2:142-144)

From these examples we see that changes were ordered, both in the form of worship and in the commands for personal behaviour, during the 23 years of Quranic revelation.

By William Cambell

One Response to “Doctrine of Abrogation”