_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ 
  https://www.livingislam.org/


Abrogation and Hadith

Naskh is a fact since Allah Most High said "We do not erase (nansakh) 
any aya or cause it to be forgotten (nunsiha) but bring a better one 
or the like of it" (2:106).

Second, the mutual abrogability of the Qur'an and the Sunna (i) is 
rationally possible - since the Qur'an describes the Sunna as 
revealed as well: "Nor does he speak of his own desire" (53:3) - and 
(ii) occurs in the Law, as per the abrogation of the verse of bequest 
(2:180) by the mass-transmitted hadith "There is no bequest for 
anyone who stands to inherit."

Imam al-Shafi`i famously dissented with the massive majority of the 
Scholars when he said that only the Qur'an abrogates the Qur'an and 
only the Sunna abrogates the Sunna, but his School did not follow him 
in this cf. Imam al-Haramayn in Mughith al-Khalq and the contemporary 
Shaykh Hasan Hitu in al-Wajiz fi Usul al-Tashri` al-Islami, both 
staunch Shafi`is.

We should be aware that in recent times the tendency has been toward 
minimalism, much of it a reaction to Orientalist and other attempts 
to construe naskh as a literary rewrite invalidating Divine origin, 
some Muslim revisionists even forwarding the view that there is no 
abrogation in the Qur'an. However, of the 60-odd teatises written on 
abrogation there is no precedent for such an extreme view. The number 
of cases hovers around 200, peaking at 247 with Ibn al-Jawzi, 214 
with Ibn Hazm and 213 with Hibat Allah ibn Salama while falling to 
134 with al-Nahhas and only 66 with `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi.

The Mu`tazili grammarian and author of the Qur'anic commentary Jami` 
al-Ta'wil li-Muhkam al-Tanzil, Abu Muslim al-Asfahani (254-322), was 
reputed to have denied intra-Qur'anic naskh altogether. Al-Razi and 
al-Shawkani refuted him in al-Mahsul and Irshad al-Fusul 
respectively, but others (such as Ibn Daqiq al-`Id and the 
contemporary scholar `Ali Hasabullah) justified his stance as a 
difference in terminology only (khilaf lafzi) - due, for example, to 
interpreting the word aya as "(super)natural sign" or "previous 
Scriptures" rather than "Qur'anic verse," or a reconsideration of 
purported abrogation to be mere specification (ikhtisas). Hence al-
Qarafi's rebuttal, when al-Razi questioned the claim of consensus on 
the existence of abrogation: "Agreement has indeed formed over 
meaning; difference is only over naming."

Al-Suyuti in his masterpiece al-Itqan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (Type 47) 
summed up the scholarship, critiqued past methodologies as based on 
faulty criteria - while generally endorsing Ibn al-`Arabi and Makki 
in their abrogation treatises - and finalized the number to 21 cases 
including those disagreed upon.

AND:

As for the specific question:
Q:
If a Hadith abrogates a Qur'anic ayah, then doesn't this mean that 
the Qur'an is not for all times?

A:
The same could be asked about

(i) the abrogation of the Qur'an by the Qur'an: If a Qur'anic aya 
abrogates another Qur'anic ayah, then doesn't this mean that that 
part of the Qur'an is not for all time?

(ii) the abrogation of previous Scriptures by the Qur'an: doesn't 
this mean that part of the pre-eternal Divine Speech is not for all 
time?

The reply is that "When we say 'abrogator and abrogated' we refer 
specifically to recitation (tilawa). As for that which is recited 
(matluw) then it can never be said to be abrogated.... For the Divine 
Speech is without beginning and has always been existent even before 
creatures were brought into existence, when it was neither written, 
nor read." `Alam al-Din al-Sakhawi, al-Tawd al-Rasikh fil-Mansukh wal-
Rasikh in his Jamal al-Qurra' wa-Kamal al-Iqra' (1:335).

So then, none of what Allah Most High revealed as Scripture from the 
first Scripture to the last is ever abrogable is the sense of its 
pristine essence (in which sense not only the Qur'an but all Divine 
revelation is for all time), but *only* in the following senses:

(i) the two senses which naskh scholars have synonymously referred 
to as "recitation" (tilawa) and "script" (rasm) on the one hand;

(ii) the sense of the legal ruling (hukm).

WAllahu a`lam wa-ahkam.

ALSO:
Q: is naskh al-tilawah agreed upon by the majority of muslim scholars 
or just naskh al-hukm?

A: Naskh al-tilawa is included in all the treatises on naskh as one of 
its three categories (hukm+tilawa, hukm alone, tilawa alone), for 
example al-Razi in al-Mahsul (3:322f.). Its archetype is the verse of 
stoning, as discussed at length in the chapter on naskh in al-
Suyuti's Itqan and elsewhere.

Yes, the late Shaykh `Abd Allah al-Ghumari in Dhawq al-Halawa fi 
Imtina` Naskh al-Tilawa and al-Ihsan fi Ta`qib al-Itqan, denied that 
"When the mature man and the mature woman commit adultery, stone 
them" was ever part of the Qur'an and asserted the report to that 
effect was disclaimed (munkar). However, it cannot be munkar since 
Imam Malik narrates it verbatim from our liegelord `Umar in the 
chapter on hadd in the Muwatta'.

AND:
Q: 
How valid is the claim that is often used by some Orientalists and 
held by some scholars of today that there is no such thing as 
"absolute" naskh at all?  In other words, given a certain 
circumstance or change in events, then any abrogated act could 
potentially be reversed and its original hukm be applicable 
once again.  Are there any examples for or against this?

A:
Not only is the abrogation, for example, of the licitness of 
intoxicant irreversible until the Day of Judgment, but Imam al-
Shafi`i in Ahkam al-Qur'an considered it binding upon all 
communities, i.e. intoxicant is haram even for Ahl al-Kitab.

AND:
Q:
 [Someone] mentioned that Sh. `Abd Allah also 
 objected on the grounds that the wording "al-shayK wa al-
 shayKatu 'idhA zanayA farjumUhumA al-battah nakAlA min Allah. Inna 
 Allah `azIz HakIm" 
was 
A) not mass-transmitted and 
B) did not have the style or eloquence of the qur'an and, therefore,
could not be or have ever been part of the qur'an. Any comment on this?

Both premises are true without leading to the conclusion claimed.

Yes, our liegelord `Umar radyAllahu `anhu reported that when it was 
revealed, the Prophet salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam refrained from 
consigning it into writing, so it did not become mass-transmitted 
from him. (If it had, it would have been meaningless for `Umar to 
strenuously predict that innovators would one day emerge and deny 
that rajm was ever in the Qur'an.)

Yet the wording is clearly related from `Umar in the Muwatta' as I 
mentioned in my previous post, not through al-Zuhri but through Yahya 
ibn Sa`id al-Ansari.

The wording and its slight variants are also related from (1) `Umar 
with a weaker chain by al-Nasa'i in the Kubra, (2) Ubay ibn Ka`b by 
Ahmad, al-Tayalisi, Ibn Hibban etc. with sound chains, (3) `A'isha by 
al-Qasim ibn Sallam with a weak chain, (3) Zayd ibn Thabit in Ahmad 
and al-Nasa'i's Sunan al-Kubra with fair chains, (4) Sa`id ibn al-`As 
in Ahmad, al-Darimi, al-Nasa'i in the Sunan al-Kubra, etc. with fair 
chains (5) Ibn `Abbas by al-Hakim, and (6) Abu Umama ibn Hunayf's 
maternal aunt in al-Nasa'i's Sunan al-Kubra and al-Hakim.

And yes, "shaykh" in Arabic does not connote betrothal but only age. 
`Iyad in his commentary on Sahih Muslim said its wording was plainly 
not Qur'anic; and al-Tabari narrates with his chain that that very 
wording was read out to the Prophet from the Torah. Evidently, the 
Torah wording was written, famous and widespread while Allah Most 
High lifted up the Qur'anic wording and caused it to be forgotten.

However, the ruling was identical and remained: it is transmitted 
from al-Zuhri by eight of his students that `Umar said: "Rajm is 
firmly established in the Book of Allah."

GF Haddad
2008-10--2008-11-23