Naskh – cancellation or abrogation of divine revelation

METHODOLOGY FOR STUDY OF THE QUR'AN 

by Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein

www.imranhosein.org

Naskh – cancellation or abrogation of divine revelation

Maulānā rejected anything which compromised the integrity of the Qur’ān, and hence he rejected the application, within the Qur’ān, of any Naskh (i.e., cancellation or abrogation of any Āyah or divinely revealed verse).

I was sitting in the classroom attending a class of Tafsīr (i.e., explanation of the Qur’ān) when the teacher quoted the Hadīth concerning a ‘forgotten’ verse of Rajm (i.e., stoning to death) that used to be in the Qur’ān once upon a time. I was quite disturbed to listen to what appeared to me to be total nonsense, and so I went to Maulānā at the end of the class to seek a clarification from him on the subject of the integrity of the Qur’ān. “Is it true”, I asked, “that there are verses which used to be in the Qur’ān once upon a time, and are now forgotten?” His response to me was to deny such a possibility, and hence to reject the Hadīth about a forgotten verse that used to be in the Qur’ān. He declared such a Hadīth to be a fabrication; and in doing so he upheld the integrity of the Qur’ān. His view was that no verse of the Qur’ān was ever cancelled, abrogated or forgotten, and that the verse of the Qur’ān in Sūrah al Baqarah on the subject of Naskh (i.e., cancelation or abrogation of divine revelation) referred to cancellation of previously revealed laws in previous scriptures, and did not imply that any verse of the Qur’ān was ever abrogated, cancelled or forgotten:  

“Any (Divinely-revealed) verse or message which We cancel, abrogate, or cause to be forgotten, We replace with a better or a similar one. Do you not know that Allah has the power over all things?” 

(Qur’ān, al-Baqarah, 2:106)   

Here is the Hadīth in Sahīh Bukhārī which recorded what we were asked to believe were the words of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb (r) who is reported to have said that when the Qur’ān was revealed there was a verse in it on Rajm (i.e., stoning to death as punishment for adultery). Since the verse is no longer in the Qur’ān, the implication, for those who accept that verses of the Qur’ān can be abrogated, would be that Allah Most High either cancelled the verse, or caused it to be forgotten: 

“… and the book (i.e., the Qur’ān) was revealed to him, and amongst that which Allah sent down was a verse on Rajm (i.e., the punishment of stoning to death for adultery), so we recited (the verse), and we understood it, and we applied it …” 

(Bukhārī, Hadīth Number 6829) 

If Allah Most High cancelled the verse, or caused it to be forgotten, then why did ‘Umar (r) attempt to restore it? Did he have the authority to do so? 

Maulānā pointed out, correctly so, that it would have been the function of the divinely-appointed teacher of the Qur’ān to declare that a verse of the Qur’ān was cancelled, abrogated or forgotten, but Nabī Muhammad (s) never did such a thing, and no one has the authority to do such a thing other than the divinely appointed teacher of the Qur’ān.

The truth is that Naskh (i.e., cancellation/abrogation of an Āyah or verse, or causing an Āyah to be forgotten) did not apply internally to verses of the Qur’ān, but, rather, externally to certain previous divine revelations. Here are examples of precisely such cancellations: 

Cancellation (for the followers of Nabī Muhammad (s) of Jerusalem as the Qiblah or direction to be faced in prayer, and replacement with the Ka’ aba in Makkah as the new Qiblah;  

• Cancellation (for the followers of Nabī Muhammad (s) of the previous law of fasting in the Torah which prohibited eating, drinking and sexual relations in the nights of fasting, with a new law which permitted such;  

• Cancellation of the law of punishment for adultery in the Torah of Rajm or stoning to death, and replacement of Rajm with a new law of public flogging;   

• Cancellation of the freedom for a man to have as many wives as he wished in previous law as practiced by Prophets such as Nabī Dāūd (David) and Nabī Sulaimān (Solomon (a)), and replacement with a new law restricting or limiting the number of wives to four;  

• Cancellation of the spiritual retreat (known in the Qur'an as I'tikāf) being performed in lonely places far from the madding crowd, and replacement with a new law which required that I'tikāf must now be performed in the Masjid;  

• Cancellation of permission (for those who follow Nabī Muhammad (s) to consume alcoholic drinks.  

This response to my question set Maulānā apart as a unique scholar in a world of Islamic scholarship, which almost universally held that some verses of the Qur’ān cancelled other verses, and hence that some verses of the Qur’ān (such as an alleged verse on Rajm) used to be in the Qur’ān once upon a time, but are now forgotten. One had to be a scholar of incredible courage and intellectual integrity to so challenge and defy almost an entire world of Islamic scholarship. Our readers are surely familiar with the pathetic refrain – how can one scholar be correct and all the rest wrong? Here was an example of one scholar who was correct, when most of the rest of his contemporaries in the world of Islamic scholarship were wrong. 

The problem that we must now address is: why is there no mention of this admirable and entirely correct view on Naskh in the QFSMS which is his magnum opus on the Qur’ān? Why is the QFSMS silent on the subject of Naskh? It will forever remain a matter of profound sadness that Maulānā chose not to present in QFSMS, or in any other written record or public lecture, the view of Naskh which he disclosed to me on that fateful day. Is there any explanation for this enigma? 

Source: Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein

to be continued .....