Volume II

Al-Nasikh wa Al-Mansukh

The revelations from Allah as found in the Quran touch on a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the Prophets, Day of Judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings), because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed. While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) brought particular codes of law (Sharia) for their respective communities.

The Arabic words ‘nasikh’ and ‘mansukh’ are both derived from the same root word ‘nasakha’ which carries meanings such as ‘to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate’. The word nasikh (an active participle) means ‘the abrogating’, while mansukh (passive) means ‘the abrogated’. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Quranic revelation, which have been ‘abrogated’ by others. Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called ‘mansukh’ while the abrogating one is called ‘nasikh’.

When the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as something new, and different from their way of life, it was introduced in stages. The Quran brought important changes gradually, to allow the people to adjust to the new prescriptions. For example, there are three verses in the Quran concerning the drinking of wine. Wine drinking was very widespread in pre-Islamic times and, although a social evil, highly esteemed. The three verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4).

The term “abrogation” (naskh) was understood differently by earlier and later scholars of the Quran. In the nomenclature of earlier scholars, the word “abrogation” held a very wide scope of application and included many scenarios that were not regarded as abrogation by later scholars. For example, if the general scope of the meaning of a verse was limited by another verse, these earlier scholars regarded the first verse as being abrogated. Hence, if common words were used in one verse and then specified in a particular manner in another verse, the earlier scholars used to term the former “abrogated” and the latter the “abrogator”. This did not mean that the first commandment had been totally abolished but that the generalization created by the first verse had been removed by the second verse. For example, the Quran says:

And do not marry polytheist women until they believe. [Al-Baqarah 2:221]

Here the word “mushrikat” (polytheist women) is general and apparently implies that marriage is disallowed with all kinds of polytheist women, be they idolaters or People of the Book. In another verse, however, it is stated:

(Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time… [Al-Maidah 5:5]

This indicates that in the first verse “polytheist women” meant those polytheists that were not from the People of the Book. Thus, the second verse limited the universal character of the first verse and told us that women from the People of the Book were lawful to believers in marriage. The earlier scholars, however, regarded this also as an example of abrogation. In other words, the first verse was abrogating and the second was the abrogator.

Contrary to this, the scope of abrogation amongst the later scholars was not so wide. They considered only such ayahs as abrogated in which the previous order was completely abolished. They did not consider limitation of a universal command as abrogation. Thus, in the above example, there was no abrogation according to later scholars, because the real order of prohibition of marrying a polytheist woman existed as such. The second verse had clarified only as to include the women of the People of the Book and that the first verse was limited and specific to women other than those of the People of the Book. Because of this difference in the scope of application, the number of abrogated verses according to earlier scholars was large. According to later scholars, however, the number of abrogated verses was very limited.

As in the field of asbab al-nuzul (occasions or circumstances of revelation), the information about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) cannot be accepted upon mere personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should go back to the Prophet and his Companions. The report must also clearly state which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh. Some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:

Report from the Prophet or Companions.
Ijma (consensus of the umma upon what is nasikh and what mansukh).
Knowledge about which part of the Quran preceded another part in the history of revelation.

The scholars have divided abrogation into three kinds:

Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

A. For abrogation of the recited (verse) together with its legal ruling:

Aisha reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Quran that ten clear suckling make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five suckling and Allah’s apostle (pbuh) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Quran (and recited by the Muslims).

B. For abrogation of a legal ruling without the recited (verse):

O Prophet (Muhammad, pbuh)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khalah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed, We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (33: 50)

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. (33: 52)

This is one of the few very clear examples of naskh, though only concerning the Prophet specifically, since for Muslims in general the number of wives has been restricted to four (Sura 4:3).

C. For abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling:

Abdullah bin Abbas reported that Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s messenger (pbuh) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (pbuh) with truth and he sent down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s messenger (pbuh) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession.

The punishment of stoning for adultery by married people has been retained in the sunnah, while it is not included in the Quran.

Above are just examples quoted for understanding the concept. A detailed table about the Nasikh and Mansukh verses is being presented in following pages bringing out clearly the opinion of various exegetes of Quran on the issue.

Legend:

‘Chp.’ = Qur’anic chapter; ‘Man.’ = ‘Mansukhah’; ‘Nas.’ = ‘Nasikhah’; ‘Qat.’ = Qatadah (d. 117); ‘Zuh.’ = al-Zuhri (d. 124); ‘Sha.’ = al-Shafii (d. 204); ‘Bukh.’ = al-Bukhari (d. 256); ‘Nah.’ = al-Nahhas (d. 338); ‘Mak.’ = Makki (d. 437); ‘I. Jaw.’ = Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597); ‘Y’ = ‘Yes’.
2^nd column from the left gives the numbers for the Quranic chapters.
The third (‘Mansukh’) column provides the numbers for the verses (ayat) that are deemed as abrogated by the sources, arranged sequentially according to their individual surahs that are reflected in the second column.
The ‘Nasikh’ Column provides the corresponding verses considered as the nasikh for the abrogated verses in the 3^rd column.
If a ‘nasikh’ is shared by the sources, the nasikh-verse number appears in the Nasikh-Column and a ‘Y’ is used to denote the respective sources’ agreement on the incidence of naskh.
If the sources differ in the nasikh but share in the mansukh, respective nasikh-verses will appear in their individual columns.

The table has been taken from a dissertation submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board by Roslan Abdul-Rahim titled “NASKH Al-QURAN A Theological and Juridical Reconsideration of The Theory of Abrogation and Its Impact on Qur’anic Exegesis”.

The comments of Roslan about the table are reproduced here for understanding:

“The construction of this table was inspired by one similar to this by Sulayman b. Ibrahim b. ‘Abd Allah al-Lahim in his edition of al-Nahhas’ al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh (cited earlier), v. 1, 343–7, except that al- Lahim’s table in very simplified and incorporates only the three works of al-Nahhas, Makki and Ibn al- Jawzi. I have instead expanded and incorporated other works, including those of Qatadah and al-Zuhri, considered the earliest among them, of al-Shafii, being an authority in his own right, and al-Bukhari, whose Hadith collection is regarded as canonical in ‘Sunni’ Islam. Second only to al-Bukhari’s, the Sahih of Muslim has not been included merely for technical reasons. But with only four definite instances of naskh that are also shared with al-Bukhari and the rest, the absence of Muslim in my consideration does not in any way alter the demography of the Table. The choice of the early scholars and their works is deliberate and they are representative enough of the range of thought and consideration in naskh thinking, particularly when we take notice of the average of one century that separates each of them from the other, with the exceptions of Qatadah and al-Zuhri, and, al-Shafii and al-Bukhari, who were contemporaries of one another, respectively. The choice of al-Nahhas is a no-brainer, him being one of the earliest and most important naskh theorists. As for Makki, his work displays great lucidity and a manageable reading despite the enormity of the discussion. Ibn al-Jawzi is also a neat choice for the fact that his Nawasikh is admittedly a result of his consideration of early sources, principally those of Qatadah, al-Shafii, al-Nahhas and Makki. I have deliberately excluded Abu ‘Ubayd for reasons of him being a contemporary and a student of al- Shafii. I have also intentionally left out the work of Hibat Allah in the above summary for the sheer fact that he was a contemporary of Makki, hence, his inclusion would be a redundancy. To be fair, Hibat Allah’s work itself was a result of his summarizing and conflating the discussions from six early sources, including the works of Muhammad b. Sa’ib al-Kalbi, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Mujahid ibn Habib and Yahya b. ‘Ubayd Allah (see Hibat Allah’s mention of these in his own work, pp. 135–6). Nevertheless, comparing his work with that of Makki’s makes the choice of Makki’s academically more reasonable and appropriate”.

The discussion of Roslan on the table prepared is also worth noting and is, hence, produced here, with slight abridgement:

“Three observations are important in this regard.

The first is that the overall incidence of naskh is much lower than many may have assumed. This assumption is supported by al-Suyuti when he admits that, despite naskh being widely discussed by many scholars, the number of instances of naskh remains very low. This cannot be truer than what is obvious from the above Table and what my previous comment suggests. So, for instance, if total unanimity (that which involves the agreement in both the mansukh and its nasikh) in the above Table is the measure for actual instance of naskh, then, there are only two instances of naskh in the Quran involving the abrogation of Q. 2: 184 and Q. 73: 1–4. If, on the other hand, unanimity includes as well the agreement in only the mansukh, then, the third instance of naskh involves Q. 2: 240, thus bringing the overall number of actual instances of naskh in the Quran to three, but only three. However, if we were to exclude al-Bukhari in the abrogation of Q. 4: 43 by 5: 90, then, unanimity is also achieved in this instance. This would then bring our total of actual instances of naskh to four. This in itself is a significant finding.

Secondly, it has also become apparent that despite the lengthy discussions and the many alleged instances of naskh that we find in the early works, each individual scholar assumes naskh on only a small number of verses. This of course is with the exception of Qatadah and al-Zuhri, whose works, as I have earlier indicated, do not deal with naskh theorizing. We need only to examine all the other related works to support this argument. Take al-Nahhas’ three-volume work for instance: it discusses 139 cases of naskh and yet he concludes with only 18, which he considers as actual cases of naskh. Makki on the other hand discusses 185 alleged instances but regards only 29 as actual cases. Similarly, despite his thorough-going discussion of more than 240 instances, Ibn al-Jawzi could only convince himself with 17 cases of abrogation. As for al-Shafii and al-Bukhari, they both appear to be the most cautious of the lot. The former explains away only 8 cases of naskh in his Risalah, while for the latter, despite recording 25 ahadith, only 7 hadiths deal with actual cases of naskh.

Thirdly, the above information, if anything, also suggests that the large number of verses that have been subjected to naskh consideration in those early works of al-Nahhas, Makki and Ibn al-Jawzi do not in themselves indicate that they are all truly abrogated. What all these works might have intended in the first place was simply to put those verses under consideration in perspective. And this is where, I believe, many readers of naskh have been misguided and have misinterpreted. Perhaps due to their mistaken preconception that there were as many mansukh cases as there were the number of cases that were being subjected to discussion and scrutiny in all these and other works, that many simply reject naskh outrightly on the basis that the number of alleged instances of naskh is so ridiculously exorbitant and outrages that they appear spurious to them. This brings us to another possible interesting phenomenon. Looking at the Table, there seems to be a suggestion that the incidence of naskh decreases over time, something I would term as the ‘diminishing trend’. We see in Qatadah and al-Zuhri 37 and 41 alleged instances of naskh respectively, but these numbers dwindled by the time of al-Shafii and beyond. We may never know the actual reason behind this, but, in all probability, it might have been the case that, as the Muslim centuries progressed, people became more sceptical about the available materials conveying the arguments and instances of naskh”.