being not that the first verse was abrogated but that a certain conception to which it had given rise was abrogated.29 Earlier authorities admit this use of the word: “Those who accept abrogation (naskh) here (2:109) take it as meaning explanation metaphorically”30, and again: “By abrogation is meant, metaphorically, explaining and making clear the significance”.31 It is an abrogation, but not an abrogation of the words of the Holy Qur’ān; rather it is the abrogation of a misconception of their meaning. This is further made clear by the application of abrogation to verses containing statements of facts (akhbār), whereas, properly speaking, abrogation could only take place in the case of verses containing a commandment or a prohibition (amr or nahy). In the ordinary sense of the word there could be no abrogation of a statement made in the Word of God, as that would suggest that God had made a wrong statement first and then recalled it. This use of the word “abrogation” by the earlier authorities regarding statements of facts32 shows that they were using the word to signify the removal of a wrong conception regarding, or the placing of a limitation upon, the meaning of a certain verse. At the same time, it is true that the use of this word soon became indiscriminate, and when any one found himself unable to reconcile two verses, he would declare one of them to be abrogated by the other.
The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Holy Qur’ān. A verse is considered to be abrogated by another when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Holy Qur’ān destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: “Will they not then meditate on the Qur’ān? And if it were from any other than Allāh, they would have found in it many a discrepancy” (4:82). It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another; and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation.
29 Many instances of this may be quoted. In 2:284, it is said, “whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allāh will call you to account for it”; while according to 2:286, “Allāh does not impose on any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability”. A report in Bukhārī says that one of the Companions of the Holy Prophet, probably ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar held the opinion that the first verse was abrogated (nusikhat) by the second. What was meant by naskh (abrogation) in this case is made clear by another detailed report given in the Musnad (Ah. I, 332). According to this report when 2:284 was revealed, the Companions entertained an idea which they had never entertained before (or, according to another report, they were greatly grieved) and thought that they had not the power to bear it. The matter being brought to the notice of the Holy Prophet, he said: “Rather say, We have heard and we obey and submit.” And so God inspired faith in their hearts. As this report shows, what happened was this: that some Companion or Companions thought that 2:284 imposed a new burden on them, making every evil idea which entered the mind without taking root or ever being translated into action, punishable in the same manner as if it had been translated into action. 2:286 made it plain that this was not the meaning conveyed by 2:284, since, according to that verse, God did not impose on man a burden which he could not bear. This removal of a misconception was called abrogation (naskh) by Ibn ‘Umar.
It may be added that there is nothing to show that 2:286 was revealed later than 2:284. On the other hand, the use of the words we have heard and we obey by the Holy Prophet to remove the wrong notion which some Companions entertained—these very words occur in 2:285 — shows that the three verses, 284, 285, and 286 were all revealed together, and hence the abrogation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of one of them by another is meaningless. There are other instances in which a verse revealed later is thought to have been abrogated by a previous verse. But how could a later verse be abrogated by a previous one? Or what point can there be in giving an order which was cancelled before it was given? If, on the other hand, the naskh is taken to mean the placing of a limitation upon the meaning of a verse, or the removal of a wrong conception attached to it, no difficulty would arise, for even a previous verse may be spoken of as placing a limitation upon the meaning of a later verse or as removing a wrong conception arising therefrom.
30 RM, I, p. 292.
31 Ibid., p. 508.
32 One example of one statement being spoken of as abrogated by another is that of 2:284, 286 (for which see the previous footnote). Another is furnished by 8:65, 66, where the first verse states that in war the Muslims shall overcome ten times their numbers, and the second, after referring to their weakness at the time — which meant the paucity of trained men among them and their lack of the implements and necessaries of war — states that they shall overcome double their numbers. Now the two verses relate to two different conditions and they may be said to place a limitation upon the meaning of each other, but one of them cannot be spoken of as abrogating the other. In the time of the Holy Prophet when the Muslims were weak, when every man, old or young, had to be called upon to take the field, and the Muslim army was but ill-equipped, the Muslims over-came double, even thrice their numbers; but in the wars with the Persian and Roman empires, they vanquished ten times their numbers. Both statements were true; they only related to different circumstances and the one placed a limitation upon the meaning of the other, but neither of them actually abrogated the other.