Abrogation

[Qualities of Allah]

I would like to make my small contribution to this discussion:

According to this concept, Repeals in the Qu’ran (Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh), it is said that some verses of the Qu’ran are repealed and invalidated by other verses! The verse that is abrogating is called Al-Nasekh, while the repealed verse is called Al-Mansoukh.

Although the concept was originally invented by a few scholars as a consequence of their poor understanding of the Qu’ran, it has been widely exploited by enemy Quran writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.
As stated, the concept of abrogation implies that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses.
On the other hand, writers who are enemies of Islam claim that these verses, and others that they put forward, are in fact contradictions within the Qu’ran.
So, they use these examples to refute the divinity of the Qu’ran.
It should be noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as "abrogated verses" are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers; they then speak of "contradictions in the Qur’an ".
Although it can be said that the common point between these two groups is their poor understanding of the Qur'an, it should also be added that in the case of non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, a large number of their assertions in favor of contradictions is only the product of their use of imprecise and misleading translations of the Qur'an.
Both of these claims can be refuted in the light of the Qu’ran. They can be shown to be nothing more than a weak understanding of the Book.

Alif, Lâm, Ra. A Scripture whose signs have been confirmed, and then detailed, from a knowledgeable Sage. Qu’ran, 11: 1

There is for them a good announcement in the life here below as well as in the ultimate life. - There will be no change in the words of Allah -. This is the huge success! Qu’ran, 10:64

These Quranic verses clearly state that God's words are perfect and cannot be abrogated, yet some have fabricated the biggest lie about the Qu’ran, claiming that some verses abrogate others. They base their words on a misinterpretation of this verse:
First verse, 2: 106
If We abrogate (“nansakh”) any Ayah or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better one, or a similar one. Don't you know that Allah is Omnipotent? Quran, 2: 106

Interpreters claim that this verse confirms that some verses invalidate others.
They interpret the word "ayah" to mean a verse in the Qur'an; and they interpret the word "nansakh" to mean "to abrogate".
But does this word, as used in the Quran, really mean to abrogate?
The word "Ayah", as used in many verses of the Quran, can have four different meanings:

It can mean a miracle from God:
And indeed, We gave Moses nine obvious Ayahs (miracles). (…) Quran, 17: 101
It can also mean an example for people:
And the people of Noah, when they denied the messengers, We drowned them and made an example (Ayah) to the people. (…) Quran, 25:37
The word "Ayah" can also mean sign:
"O my Lord, said (Zechariah), grant me a sign (Ayah)". “Your sign (Ayah), says (Allah,) will be that you will not be able to talk to people for three nights while being well. Quran, 19:10
And finally, it can denote a verse from the Quran:
(Here is) a blessed Book which We have sent down to you, that they may meditate on its verses (Ayat) and those who are gifted with intelligence may reflect! Quran, 38:29
If we now consider verse 106 of sura 2, one can easily verify that the word "Ayah" cannot refer here to a verse from the Quran. It can correspond to other meanings (miracle, example or sign), but not to a Quranic verse.

Here's why :
1) The words "may We make him forget" cannot be applied to a verse from the Quran.
How could a verse from the Quran be forgotten?
Because even if the verse is invalidated by others (as falsely claimed by the interpreters), it will still be part of the Quran and therefore cannot be forgotten.

2) The words "We bring a similar one" would be meaningless if the word "Ayah" meant a Koranic verse, simply because it would be absurd for God to invalidate a verse and replace it with an identical one!
3) If the word “Ayah” in verse 106 means a miracle, example or sign, then all the words in the verse have a perfect meaning. The words "may We make him forget" can be applied to all three meanings, and this is what happens with the passage of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

Likewise, the words "We bring a better, or the like" accord with the miracles of God.
God replaces a miracle with its like or one that is greater. Consider the following verse:
We actually sent Moses with Our miracles (Ayah), to Pharaoh and his notables. He said, "I am the Messenger of the Lord of the universe." Then when he came to them with Our miracles (Ayah), they laughed. Each miracle (Ayah) We showed them was more convincing than its previous one. And We seized them with the chastisement, perhaps they will return (to Us). Quran, 43: 46-48

The word "nansakh" used in 2: 106 comes from the verb "Nasakha". It is said that this word means to repeal.
But a careful study of all the Quranic verses using this word shows that it actually has the opposite meaning. It means to record or put in writing.
When God means "substitute", the word used is “Baddala”, as in 16: 101.
When We replace ("baddalna") one "Ayat" with another - and God knows better what He sends down - they say, "You made it up." But most of them do not know. Quran, 16:10
The replacement in question here can relate to two things:
a) replacing one scripture with another. This first meaning can be validated by the following verse:
And upon you We sent down the Book with the truth, to confirm the Books which were there before it and to prevail over them. (…) Quran, 5:48

Here, the words "prevail over them" confirm that the previous scriptures are replaced by the Qur'an.
b) Replacing one law in one scripture with another in a subsequent scripture. This second meaning is also proven by the Quran, where various things previously prohibited for the People of the Book were made lawful in the Quran.
As an example, we are told in 2: 187 that sexual relations between married couples during the nights of the month of fasting were permitted, whereas they were previously prohibited.
We are also told in 6: 146 that God forbade the Jews to have all animals with one nail; and that the fat of cattle and sheep was prohibited. This has been made lawful in the Quran.
Verse 16:10 is not about substituting one verse for another
The proof of this lies in the same verse, in the words "they say: You made up this"
Because of their ignorance of the Quran, these forgers clearly violated a fundamental truth in the Quran which states that the words of God cannot be abrogated:

And the word of your Lord is fulfilled in all truth and righteousness. No one can change His words. He is the Audient, the Omniscient. Qur'an, 6:11 a.m.

… No change in God's words. This is the immense triumph. Quran, 10:64

[url] https://kadertahri.canalblog.com

Thanks brother Wahrani. I know that nothing in the Quran can be abrogated. You kindly took your time to reply and showed many verses which say there is no abrogation. The problem is that I literally go to a Quranic website and they say in their footnotes that abrogation within the Quran exists. Many Muslim "scholars" are ignorant and mention the nasekh and mansookh verses. That is the problem. So when I read the Quran and verses seem to abrogate each other (obviously not) I will just post the verses here and get an answer and all Muslims that come here will learn that there is no abrogation in the Quran. 

So yes I also believe that the "Ayat" mentioned in 2:106 are referring to miracles and not verses as there is strong evidence for that.

Thank you and جَزَاكَ الله

[QuranSearchCom]

So you're saying that the Verse that prohibits marrying women "after this" can apply to people who have 4 wives in modern day am I right? And why Allah talked to only the prophet in the quran is unknown?

Please confirm or fix what I'm saying.

No, it was only limited to the Prophet.  The Noble Verse is speaking in singular and directly to him:  LAKA (to you) is singular and is directly speaking to a single person and ignores everyone else around; to thee, and it is masculine.  If you direct LAKA to someone in a group, it would single him out.  The feminine form of LAKA is LAKI.  LAKUMA is a dual plural (dual plural even for two women).  LAKUM is a plural of three or more of either mixed gender or all men.  LAKUN is for three or more women.


I believe the prohibition for the Prophet from marrying more women and from divorcing and marrying women as a replacement is to prevent the Prophet from abusing marriage and divorce.  If the Prophet himself was practicing Muta, then this would've ended it dead in its track right there for him.  The sacredness of marriage is big in Islam, and the Covenant of Marriage in Islam is a SOLEMN ONE.  Mithaqan Ghaleetha ميثاقا غليظا (solemn covenant) was given three times in the Glorious Quran:

1-  To the solemn covenant between Allah Almighty and the Jews on the sacredness of the Sabbath.

2-  To the solemn covenant between Allah Almighty and the Prophets.

3-  To the solemn covenant between the husband and wife.

Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/was_muta_immoral.htm


Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[Qualities of Allah]

Yes I realized that it was in the singular but I thought that in modern day this could also apply to the reader of the Quran
who has 4 wives since the Quran talks to everyone. But I guess it only refers to the Prophet.

An abrogation is when a general Law is permanently nullified by another. This does not exist in the Glorious Quran.  Christianity's prohibition of polygamy, for example, would qualify as an abrogation in their lala world of buffoonery, even though Jesus never forbade it:

www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_problematic_hyperboles.htm

Because their religion is a religion of lies, it is filled with lies on GOD Almighty, and it has turned sinful into lawful and lawful into sinful.


If the Prophet was in a position where any further marriage became forbidden for him because he had more than four wives at the time Allah Almighty set that limit, then this is not an abrogation.  The Prophet's situation here is not a general Law for all Muslims and for all times and places.  The Law about a woman offering herself to the Prophet can still be applied for slave women.  Believing slaves owned by Muslims did exist back then.  She could still be his female harem.  But then again, one of Islam's Grand Goals is to end all slavery:

[090:012] And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is?
[090:013] (It is) the setting free of a slave,

So one of the monumental tasks upon the Muslims is to end all forms of slavery.  Yet, the Glorious Quran also allows enslaving, buying slaves, selling slaves, having harems (female slaves).  So is this a contradiction?  No.  Is this an abrogation (90:12-13 abrogating all other verses or vise versa)?  No.  All Noble Verses concerning slaves and slavery still stand TILL THIS DAY!  All 6236 Noble Verses that make up the entire Glorious Quran still stand today and will always stand till the Day of Judgment.  We have no abrogation here.  The Muslim State and Court and people must be mindful that Allah Almighty has set high and monumental goals in the Glorious Quran.  In the interim of things, however, the slavery Noble Verses could be activated and applied due to battles that may occur or deals and/or transactions.  But the ultimate goal must be to end all forms of slavery in all Muslim lands.

As to why the Noble Verses that are limited to the Prophet exist in the Glorious Quran, this belongs to Allah Almighty.  No one can really answer this one.  I can however remind you that the Glorious Quran's Text and number of verses is STUNNINGLY miraculous:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links


Take care,
Osama Abdallah

So you're saying that the Verse that prohibits marrying women "after this" can apply to people who have 4 wives in modern day am I right? And why Allah talked to only the prophet in the quran is unknown?

Please confirm or fix what I'm saying.

No, it was only limited to the Prophet.  The Noble Verse is speaking in singular and directly to him:  LAKA (to you) is singular and is directly speaking to a single person and ignores everyone else around; to thee, and it is masculine.  If you direct LAKA to someone in a group, it would single him out.  The feminine form of LAKA is LAKI.  LAKUMA is a dual plural (dual plural even for two women).  LAKUM is a plural of three or more of either mixed gender or all men.  LAKUN is for three or more women.


I believe the prohibition for the Prophet from marrying more women and from divorcing and marrying women as a replacement is to prevent the Prophet from abusing marriage and divorce.  If the Prophet himself was practicing Muta, then this would've ended it dead in its track right there for him.  The sacredness of marriage is big in Islam, and the Covenant of Marriage in Islam is a SOLEMN ONE.  Mithaqan Ghaleetha ميثاقا غليظا (solemn covenant) was given three times in the Glorious Quran:

1-  To the solemn covenant between Allah Almighty and the Jews on the sacredness of the Sabbath.

2-  To the solemn covenant between Allah Almighty and the Prophets.

3-  To the solemn covenant between the husband and wife.

Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/was_muta_immoral.htm


Take care,
Osama Abdallah

So this law (33:50) that was replaced by another (33:52) was ONLY for the Prophet. And based on what you said, the law for the Prophet ONLY if replaced by another law is not abrogation since it is not a general law to Muslims for all times and places. Am I correct?

I think maybe 33:50 was revealed to the Prophet to provide for needy and poor women who lost their husbands by marrying them. And later, maybe 33:52 was revealed to, like you said, not make the Prophet abuse marriage. So first Allah revealed 33:50 to provide for needy women and then later after a while, Allah (always) knew that marriage to too many women would likely make the Prophet neglect the Covenant of Marriage. Am I wrong?

[QuranSearchCom]

No abrogation.  33:50 defined the women that Muslim men can marry.  Yes, the Noble Verse here was for the Prophet, but the message was for all Muslims since this deals with marriage, and whom we can marry. 

The portion about a woman giving herself to the Prophet was never abrogated if she were to be a believing harem:

"It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.  (The Noble Quran, 33:52)"


But again, Allah Almighty also commanded that all slavery must come to an end in the Muslims' lands.  See the Noble Verses in the previous posts.

[Qualities of Allah]

.

[QuranSearchCom]

You're arguing too much over this point and it is becoming annoying.  I don't know the details of how the Noble Verse was executed during the Prophet's days, and I don't really care.  The Noble Verse above is crystal clear:  Any and all free women are forbidden upon the Prophet in marriage.  He could only interact with any slave woman he may have owned at the time.  And again and again, Allah Almighty Commanded all Muslims to end all forms of slavery in the Muslims' lands.  Let's move on to the next "abrogation" lie.



The gospel of porn, i.e., "bible" can't even decide on whether brothers can do their little sister or not.  It literally praises them for lusting over her and her "little" breasts, as they called her breasts:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac10.htm#links

Yet, this pornography is upheld while being part of the pile of dung, i.e., bible, as the Holy Word of GOD.

[Qualities of Allah]

You're arguing too much over this point and it is becoming annoying.  I don't know the details of how the Noble Verse was executed during the Prophet's days, and I don't really care.  The Noble Verse above is crystal clear:  Any and all free women are forbidden upon the Prophet in marriage.  He could only interact with any slave woman he may have owned at the time.  And again and again, Allah Almighty Commanded all Muslims to end all forms of slavery in the Muslims' lands.  Let's move on to the next "abrogation" lie.



The gospel of porn, i.e., "bible" can't even decide on whether brothers can do their little sister or not.  It literally praises them for lusting over her and her "little" breasts, as they called her breasts:

www.answering-christianity.com/ac10.htm#links

Yet, this pornography is upheld while being part of the pile of dung, i.e., bible, as the Holy Word of GOD.

You mean these specific Verses you don't want to talk about or you want to stop this "abrogation lies" topic completely?

Let's move on to the next "abrogation" lie.

Do you mean move on to supposed other verses talking about "abrogation" or what you said afterwards about the "Bible can't even make up its mind"? Because if you meant the former then I dont have any Verses yet under question. They will come later in time.

جزاك الله خيرا

[QuranSearchCom]

Let's discuss the others.  In regards to 33:52, even at the worst case scenario it doesn't qualify as an abrogation.  It is no more than an EXCEPTION and very limited to the Prophet that he can no longer marry women, when other Noble Verses allowed him and the Muslims to marry.  The reason I still insist there is no abrogation is because the Law still stands for the Muslims on whom they can marry from relatives and others.  The Noble Verse was to the Prophet, but the Law was a general one for all Muslim men on whom they can marry from their relatives and others.  The prohibition for the Prophet to marry more women came for reasons such as:

1-  The Prophet had more than four wives at the time Allah Almighty allowed polygamy but limited it to up to four wives only.

2-  The Prophet might've abused marriage and divorce and practiced Muta (temporary marriage).  This would've violated the sacredness of marriage and Allah Almighty might've punished him or limited him for that by prohibiting him from marrying and divorcing ever again.


Whatever the reason is (and I don't really care what it was), we do not have an abrogation here.  We have a limitation to the Prophet and an exceptional case that is limited to the Prophet only.  An abrogation is a Law to all Muslims abrogated by another contradicting one, which does not exist at all in the Glorious Quran.  For example, meat of swine (pig) is forbidden but then becomes allowed.  That would be a clear abrogation in this hypothetical example.

Let's talk about the other abrogations that the infidels and the ignorant from the Muslims bark on the Quran.  Watch how their lies get decimate here, insha'Allah.

Jazaka Allah Khayr,
Osama

[Qualities of Allah]

I read tafsirs on 33:50 and the part where the Verse says "this is only for you (Prophet) and not the other believers" refers only to "any women who offer themselves to you" and not the cousins mentioned in the before part of the verse. So basically what you are saying here, anyone can marry their cousins, not just the Prophet.

  The Noble Verse was to the Prophet, but the Law was a general one for all Muslim men on whom they can marry from their relatives and others.

You are correct, and these Verses do not bother me anymore because you have answered my questions.

Jazakallah Khayran also.