Abrogated verese within Quran (nasikh mansookh), myth or reality?

[psyah]

Re: Abrogated verese within Quran (nasikh mansookh), myth or reality?

@kchughtai

people who believe that certain verses in the Quran are nasikh that have abrogated some others. They base their belief on the following verse

2:107) Whatever Sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof. Dost thou not know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills?

As per sunnipath.com (http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0040P0021.aspx),

the above mentioned web page has dilated on this issue quite a bit.

Some of my questions that I have in mind are:

1. Quran says that there is no doubt in this book. Also says that there is no contradiction in Allah’s word. If we accept the concept of abrogation, we are actually giving way to contradictions.

2. if a certain verse is abrogated, why would it be still part of the final compilation of the holy quran? see poit 2 above. This is quite weird that verse ruling is abrogated but it still is part of the Quran.

3. point 3 is even more weird. ruling in a certain verse is not abrogated but the verse is. ? this is simply beyond me.

following quote from the web page is important

I have read it somewhere that around 500 verese were said to be abrogated that was reduced to 5 by the time of hazrat shah wali ullah(ra). so it means that whole this thing was based on opinions or may be certain tradtions that were held above the holy quran.

So what do you guys say?

Peace kchughtai

There is no contradiction here … You need to understand what a contradiction is, apply it correctly … in order for it to be a contradiction. Something that appears odd may still not be a contradiction.

First and foremost …

Is there evidence that abrogation is valid … the verse you provided demonstrates that it is … In other words there is no contradiction in the idea of abrogation within Islamic scripture because Islamic scripture provides the basis for it such as with 2:107.

So the reasoning in your point 1) is false and flawed. There is absolutely no doubt … The type of abrogation that takes place is something you can call “raising the standard” … for example … If I say “don’t be drunk in the state of prayer” and then later say “don’t drink” … there is no contradiction because the first condition is encapsulated by the second … in other words with the bringing in of the second the first is still relevant, but it has become contextualised. The first case is silent on whether drinking is allowed or not, but when the second comes in, the first becomes automatically applicable. It is impossible to be drunk during prayer if drinking itself has been outlawed.

One thing that does however surface from this discussion is that the second statement makes the first redundant - or renders any ruling of that kind inappropriate because the condition of drunkeness will not be the issue but drinking itself. The first statement is hence logically correct and applicable but it has no real meaning in practical terms.

2. This forms the basis of the verse being present, but it’s ruling is not applicable because a greater ruling is in place due to another verse/revelation that has replaced it.

3. These types of verse where ruling are maintained but the verses are out of the scripture are purely those ones which have been forgotten. There is evidence within the Qur’an that forgetfulness has happened with respect to revelation … it is mentioned in the Qur’an and also when it did happen it is our belief that it happened through Divine wisdom. We also know that the Qur’an is not the limitation of the Word of Allah (SWT) … We know that if the trees were made pens and the oceans made ink then sooner would they run out than the Words of Allah (SWT) …

Why are you even raising such topics here? Provide us your opinions and give us the basis for them instead of taking material from a group that you do not represent or who do not represent your opinions …