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.

Basis of abrogation

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.