The Meaning of Naskh in the Principles of Jurisprudence, and the Verses Cited by the Commentators

اصول فقہ میں نسخ کے معنی — مفسرین کے مخصوص آیتوں کا ذم

The Meaning of Naskh in Usul al-Fiqh

After this it becomes clear how large a number of mufassirun there are who deny naskh, and what were the causes of it. It becomes evident then from this how many of those who count a great number of abrogated verses are in fact mistaken — what were the causes of those mistakes.

The Causes of Erroneous Attribution of Naskh to Qur'anic Verses

(1) The Qur'an sharif from time to time issues rulings that are contingent upon the customs and practices of pre-Islamic times, or upon the injunctions of previous religions. Those who come upon them say: 'This ruling has been changed; this verse is its naskh (abrogator) of such-and-such a Qur'anic verse or injunction.' But this is utterly wrong. We must consider carefully that under our discussion is the naskh of Qur'anic verses and injunctions — not the abrogation of pre-Islamic customs and practices and injunctions of earlier eras.

(2) Sometimes a general ruling is given, and on special circumstances a particular ruling is issued. If that particular ruling co-exists with the general ruling, then those who come upon it call it 'takhsis' (specification) and 'istithna' (exception); but if it is issued at another time, they call the particular ruling the naskh (abrogator) of the general ruling — which is incorrect. For example, consider the texts of the Taʿzīrāt (penal codes) of India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Palestine — all are legal provisions. So would it be proper to say that all the Taʿzīrāt are abrogated by one legal code? Never. [The Qur'an says:] 'Wa al-'asr, inna al-insana lafi khusr, illa alladhina amanu…' (Sura al-Asr). Has the ruling 'inna al-insana lafi khusr' been abrogated by 'illa alladhina amanu'? Never.

(3) Some laws are also time-specific and place-specific. An order is given for a particular time or a specific situation — it was meant only for that time; after the passage of that duration the order remains no longer, not because it has been abrogated, but because the allotted time has ended and the order has simply run out. For example: 'Lā taqrabū al-ṣalāta wa antum sukārā — do not approach the prayers while you are intoxicated' (al-Nisāʾ 4:43) — that is, do not come near to prayer while drunk. The prohibition of wine was introduced in stages: at first it was merely discouraged to drink near the time of prayer; then, in a later stage, wine was made wholly forbidden (al-Māʾida 5:90–91). Once the complete prohibition was established, the interim caution against praying while intoxicated had served its purpose — it lapsed not by abrogation but because its time-bound aim had been fulfilled.

The command remained for only that time; it was not abrogated — rather it remained in force until its appointed time ended, after which it lapsed not because of abrogation but because of the ending of the time-bound duration.

(4) Sometimes a permanent ruling is given along with an initial discretionary permission, and later that permission is superseded not by abrogation but by a firmer ruling. People mistakenly consider this to be naskh. Moral and ethical injunctions, for instance, cannot be subjected to abrogation by juridical (qanuni) decree. To say that a moral/ethical ruling is the naskh of a legal ruling is not correct.

(5) Some sentences at one time bear a dual meaning, and people take that sentence to mean one meaning. If they understand it correctly then they understand well; but if they take the wrong meaning, they think the first ruling has been abrogated — whereas in truth both the first and second rulings are one and the same thing, and the mistake arises only from people's misunderstanding.

(6) Sometimes a ruling relating to a particular incident is given, and it carries with it a conditional qualification. In another sentence, that conditional qualification is not included — people take it as a general and unconditional ruling. And the conditional one they take to be its naskh (abrogator), whereas the two sentences are not mutually contradictory at all.

(7) Sometimes a ruling concerning one matter is issued, and people apply it by analogy (qiyas) to other similar matters. Although the original ruling has specific characteristics of its own, and the other matters cannot have the same ruling applied to them. So such analogical rulings are given against these, and people think that the first ruling has been abrogated.

(8) People think that the verses revealed in the Madinan period — which were revealed after the earlier Makkan verses — abrogate those verses. This is totally incorrect — for no abrogation of any ruling was performed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), the Seal of the Prophets. The religion of Islam is not meant for a specific time alone, but is to remain until the Day of Judgement. Can it be that all Muslim-majority countries are in one single state? Never, never. The Turks, the Afghans, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Syrians — and now Iran — are all in different conditions. Each situation has its own appropriate verse and Qur'anic ruling. So the Madani verses have not been abrogated — rather they are not applicable to the people of Madinah's current situation. When the verse of the sword was revealed in Madinah, were all people acting on it? Never. Nay, some perform it and some do not. So it cannot be said that some specific Qur'anic verses abrogate the fundamental Madinan verses — each verse holds its position according to the circumstances.