by Silas




The doctrine of abrogation, that one Quranic passage is canceled by another, has always been controversial. From the time that Muhammad introduced it, to this day, Muslims have been discussing and arguing its contexts, applications, and ramifications. This doctrine is significant because it affects how violence in Islam is applied. Thus this crucial aspect of Islamic theology must be understood in order to understand the reasoning behind violence in Islam.

A simple look at current world events shows that Islamic violence is the premier problem in the world. How many nations can you name that have not had a recent problem with Muslim fundamentalist violence? The important doctrine of abrogation undergirds the theological justification for much of that violence.

This doctrine also warrants scrutiny because it casts a "human" shadow upon God’s nature. Hence many Western Muslims are uncomfortable and reject the doctrine. And while most Muslims coming from traditional Islamic lands, ostensibly have no problems with it, their writings emit an aroma of doubt and embarrassment.

Muhammad (Ahmad) claimed that the angel Gabriel heard God's word and repeated it to Muhammad. In turn Muhammad repeated it as the Quran. But during his 23 year career as a religious leader he forgot part of the Quran, and some Quranic verses contradicted others. Instructions, teachings, and doctrines were occasionally at odds. The lack of consistency, the contradictions, and the capricious light that it cast "Allah" in were obvious. Various people criticized Muhammad and to address these critics Muhammad said that some Quranic verses were replaced by others (2:106).

The contextual Islamic words for this topic are "Nasukh" meaning "that which abrogates", and "Mansukh", meaning "that which is abrogated". Below are a few excerpts from various scholars’ statements on abrogation.

The great Islamic scholar Arthur Jeffery wrote:

The Quran is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Quranic science known as "Nasikh wa Mansukh", i.e.: "the Abrogators and the Abrogated".[1]


The "Dictionary of Qur'anic Terms and Concepts"[2], pages 5, 6, says:

Quranic injunctions themselves may be abrogated, as has happened in a few cases. An example of this abrogation is 24:2 which abrogates the punishment of adultery, (q.v.) stated in 4:15-16. A study of the Quran shows first, that only a limited number of Quranic verses have been abrogated, and second, that the abrogation pertains to legal and practical matters only, and not to matters of doctrine and belief.


The Hughes Dictionary of Islam[3] says:

Jalalu'd-Din in his 'Itqan' gives the following list of 20 verses, which are acknowledged by all commentators to be abrogated.


The reader is referred to the Hughes' work for Jalalu'd Din's concrete list of 20. I will provide a few later. A different Muslim scholar states that up to 500 verses are affected by abrogation.


Another Muslim writer, Mahmoud Ayoub, sums up the uncertainty by saying,

"Yet among Muslim scholars there is no general agreement as to what verses are abrogated and by what verses."[4]


Now don’t be surprised if the early Muslims were confused. They should be. In fact, even Muhammad admitted that the Quran was confusing…


Bukhari 6. 70:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Allah's Apostle recited the Verse:--

"It is He who has sent down to you the Book. In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundation of the Book, others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the Truth) follow thereof that is not entirely clear seeking affliction and searching for its hidden meanings; but no one knows its hidden meanings but Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it (i.e. in the Qur'an) the whole of it (i.e. its clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord. And none receive admonition except men of understanding." (3.7)

Then Allah's Apostle said, "If you see those who follow thereof that is not entirely clear, then they are those whom Allah has named [as having deviation (from the Truth)] 'So beware of them."


Jay Smith sums up this monumental problem inherent in the Quran[5]:

We know that the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given Sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then can one know which were the more authoritative?


"Nasikh wa Mansukh" is not a black magic science and there is a lot of contextual material to use for reference. But it is impossible to be precise in many cases. Thus the disagreement and confusion even amongst devout Muslim scholars.

For those of you interested in this particular subject I suggest Richard Bell's "Introduction to the Quran"[6]. Bell discusses the topic and provides a number of abrogations throughout his book. He went so far as to even re-splice the Quran and come up with a new arrangement of Suras and verses.

Some Muslims claim that there are no Quranic verses that abrogate other Quranic verses, but that the Quran only abrogates other Scriptures. This position is untenable. We will see that Muhammad believed that some Quranic verses were cancelled or removed and that the early Muslims understood abrogation explicitly as one Quranic verse replacing or canceling another.





Here are the actual Quranic verses that reference abrogation. All quotes are from Dawood's English Translation of the Quran.[7]

2:106: "If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar...."

13:39: "God abrogates and confirms what He pleases. His is the Decree Eternal."

17:86: "If We pleased We could take away that which We have revealed to you:.."

16:101 "When We change one verse for another (God knows best what He reveals), they say: "You are an impostor...."

22:52: "Never have we sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations."


This last verse is connected to what are known as the "Satanic Verses". At one time Muhammad compromised with paganism and spoke a quranic "revelation" allowing idol worship. Later he said that God showed him he had been tricked by Satan and spoke Satan's words. His revelation allowing idol worship was then removed from the recital of the Quran, and another put in its place. You can read more about the Satanic verses here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm





There are many cases of abrogation but for lack of space I limit my selection.

  1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the "Qibla", the direction of prayer, from Jerusalem to Mecca.
  2. The change of punishment for adulteresses: life imprisonment (according to sura 4:15) was then changed to 100 strokes by flogging (according to sura 24:2). Yet, Islamic law prescribes stoning, based on the practice of Muhammad who commanded to stone those guilty of adultery. The punishment of stoning for adultery is seen as either an example of abrogation of the Quran by the Sunna, or as an example of a verse of which the reading has been abrogated (removed from the text of the Quran) but the meaning remains in force.[8] On the other hand, verses 4:15 and 24:2 are abrogated in meaning while the text remains in the Quran for recitation.
  3. The fighting ability of victory for Muslims is also abrogated by one verse following the next....
  4. "Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. God has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by God's will, defeat two thousand. God is with those that are steadfast." Sura 8:65, 66.

  5. The Sword verses: the Call to "fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them" (sura 9:5); or "strike off their heads in battle" (sura 47:5); or "make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute" (sura 9:29); or "Fight then... until the religion be all of it Allah's" (sura 8:39); or "a grievous penalty against those who reject faith" (sura 9:3). All of these contradict "There is no compulsion in religion" (sura 2:256). Note here that sura 9 was one of the last suras to be "revealed to Muhammad". Logically, it should abrogate "there is no compulsion in Islam".
  6. The night prayer performed by reciting the Quran ought to be more or less half the time of the night (Sura 73:2). This was changed to as much as may be easy for you (verse 20).







Bukhari’s[9] and Muslim’s[10] Hadith collections contain a number of examples of abrogation. These also illustrate the confusion, from the earliest days of Islam, concerning abrogation. For example, conflicting hadith discussing abrogation are related to Sura 2:184 and 2:185. The verses are concerned with fasting, two Hadith say verse 185 abrogated verse 184, (Volume 6, # 33, 34), while one Hadith says it was not abrogated (volume 6, #32), see below.


Bukhari 6. 32:

Narrated 'Ata:

That he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting the Divine Verse:--

"And for those who can fast they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day..." (2.184) Ibn 'Abbas said, "This Verse is not abrogated, but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting)."

Bukhari 6. 34:

Narrated Salama:

When the Divine Revelation:

"For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day," (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it.

Bukhari 6. 53:

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."

Bukhari 6. 69:

Narrated Marwan Al-Asghar:

A man from the companions of Allah's Apostle who I think, was Ibn 'Umar said, "The Verse:-- "Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it...." was abrogated by the Verse following it."

Bukhari 6.285:

Narrated Al-Qasim bin Abi Bazza:

That he asked Said bin Jubair, "Is there any repentance of the one who has murdered a believer intentionally?" Then I recited to him:--

"Nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden except for a just cause." Said said, "I recited this very Verse before Ibn 'Abbas as you have recited it before me. Ibn 'Abbas said, 'This Verse was revealed in Mecca and it has been abrogated by a Verse in Surat-An-Nisa which was later revealed in Medina."

Muslim, Number 0675:

Abu al. 'Ala' b. al-Shikhkhir said: The Messenger of Allah abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur'an abrogates some part with the other.

Muslim, Number 3421:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Muslim, Number 7173:

Sa'id b. Jubair reported: I said to Ibn Abbas: Will the repentance of that person be accepted who kills a believer intentionally? He said: No. I recited to him this verse of Sura al-Furqan (xix.): "And those who call not upon another god with Allah and slay not the soul which Allah has forbidden except in the cause of justice" to the end of the verse. He said: This is a Meccan verse which has been abrogated by a verse revealed at Medina: "He who slays a believer intentionally, for him is the requital of Hell-Fire where he would abide for ever," and in the narration of Ibn Hisham (the words are): I recited to him this verse of Sura al-Furqan: "Except one who made repentance."



From Guillaume, "The Life of Muhammad", page 326:

Then He said: "O prophet, God is sufficient for thee and the believers who follow thee. O prophet, exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast ones among you they will overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they will overcome a thousand unbelievers for they are a senseless people," i.e. they do not fight with a good intention nor for truth nor have they knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

‘Abdullah b. Abu Najih from ‘Ata’ b. Abu Ribah from ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas told me that when this verse came down it came as a shock to the Muslims who took it hard that twenty should have to fight two hundred and a hundred fight a thousand. So God relieved them and cancelled the verse with another saying: "Now has God relieved you and He knows that there is weakness amongst you, so if there are a hundred steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you they shall overcome two thousand by God’s permission, for God is with the steadfast."



Ibn Sa’d collected hadith related to various companions. Concerning Ibn Mas’ud he said:

Verily the Quran was recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah once in every Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or altered.




It’s clear that the Companions of Muhammad were taught the concept of abrogation from Muhammad for they uniformly applied it in the same manner: one verse canceling out another. In these examples there are no references to other Scriptures or other religions, but rather it is an internal-to-Islam discussion. Note that during Muhammad’s final year he had the Quran recited to him twice by Gabriel and then reviewed the changes with Ibn Mas’ud. There were enough crucial changes made that last year that Muhammad needed to teach them to his top Quranic disciple - Ibn Mas’ud.





Various Islamic scholars taught and commented on the doctrine of abrogation. The "Reliance of the Traveller"[13] says that the great Islamic scholar Shafi’i (born some 140 years after Muhammad died), wrote a book on contradictory hadith and composed the significant Treatise on Jurisprudence, “al-Risala”. He was the first to formulate the principles of the science of the study of abrogation, i.e. which verses are cancelled out by other verses.


Ibn Kathir, another great Muslim scholar, details the doctrine of abrogation in his commentary.

TAFSIR OF IBN KATHIR[14] on verse 2:106

The Meaning of Naskh

Ibn Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We abrogate.''

Also, Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We erase.''

Also, Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid said that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We keep the words, but change the meaning.'' He related these words to the companions of `Abdullah bin Mas`ud. Ibn Abi Hatim said that similar statements were mentioned by Abu Al-`Aliyah and Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi.

Also As-Suddi said that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We erase it.'' Further, Ibn Abi Hatim said that it means, "Erase and raise it, such as erasing the following wordings (from the Qur'an), ‘The married adulterer and the married adulteress: stone them to death,’ and, ‘If the son of Adam had two valleys of gold, he would seek a third.’''

Ibn Jarir stated that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever ruling we repeal in an Ayah by making the allowed unlawful and the unlawful allowed.'' The Nasakh only occurs with commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo Nasakh. The word, ‘Nasakh’ literally means, ‘to copy a book’. The meaning of Nasakh in the case of commandments is removing the commandment and replacing it by another. And whether the Nasakh involves the wordings, the ruling or both, it is still called Nasakh.

Allah said next,

(or Nunsiha (cause it to be forgotten)).

`Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh or Nunsiha) means, "Whatever Ayah We repeal or uphold without change.'' Also, Mujahid said that the companions of Ibn Mas`ud (who read this word Nansa'ha) said that it means, "We uphold its wording and change its ruling.'' Further, `Ubayd bin `Umayr, Mujahid and `Ata' said, ‘Nansa'ha’ means, "We delay it (i.e., do not abrogate it).'' Further, `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi said that the Ayah means, "We delay repealing it.'' This is the same Tafsir provided by As-Suddi and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas. `Abdur-Razzaq said that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said about Allah's statement,

(Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten) "

Allah made His Prophet forget what He willed and He abrogated what He will.''

Allah's said, (We bring a better one or similar to it), better, relates to the benefit provided for the one it addresses, as reported from `Ali bin Abi Talhah that Ibn `Abbas said, (We bring a better one) means, "We bring forth a more beneficial ruling, that is also easier for you.'' Also, As-Suddi said that, (We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We bring forth a better Ayah, or similar to that which was repealed.'' Qatadah also said that, (We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We replace it by an Ayah more facilitating, permitting, commanding, or prohibiting.''



This commentary is a product of two scholars, the most significant being Suyuti. He developed a list of 20 verses that have been abrogated.

Jalalain on 2:106

When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed: And whatever verse (ma is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not [that is only its judgement, but its recital continues]; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning '[Whatever verse] We command you or Gabriel to abrogate', or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading [of nunsi'ha] is nunsiha, from 'to forget': so '[Whatever verse We abrogate] or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart'; the response to the conditional sentence [begun with ma] is: We bring [in place] a better, one that is more beneficial for [Our] servants, either because it is easier [to implement] or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting [verses] (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).


MAARIFUL TAFSIR[16] by Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’

This commentary was made by a premier Pakistani scholar.

On verses 2:106, 107

At first, Muslims used to pray with their faces turned towards the Baytul-Maqdis at Jerusalem; later on, Allah commanded them to turn towards the Ka’bah. Similarly, certain other injunctions were abrogated altogether, or replaced by others. …

The verse declares that if Allah chooses to abrogate an injunction contained in a certain verse, while retaining the verse itself as part of the Holy Quran, or chooses to remove a verse from the memories of men altogether, there is nothing objectionable in it, for Allah alone knows the wisdom that lies in His choice, and He makes these changes for the good of men. …

What is Naskh (Abrogation).

Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses, or making men forget certain others. The first phrase of the verse, thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Quran can be abrogated. The Arabic word in the text is Naskh, which has two lexical meanings - (1) to write, and (2) to abolish, to repeal. According to the consensus of all the commentators, the word has been employed in this verse in the second sense -- that is, the repeal or abrogation of an injunction. So, in the terminology of the Holy Quran and the Hadith, Naskh signifies the promulgation of an injunction in place of another -- whether the later injunction merely consists in the repeal of the earlier or, substitutes a new regulation in its place. The other form of Naskh mentioned in this verse is that sometimes Allah made the Holy Prophet and the blessed Companions forget a certain verse altogether. The commentators have cited several instances of this kind of Naskh, and the purpose in such cases has usually been to repeal a certain regulation. …

Thus we read in "Ruh al-Ma’ani"

"The people belonging to all the Shari’ahs are unanimous in accepting the validity of abrogation and its actual occurrence both. …

Imam al-Qurtubi says:

"It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed."

In this connection, al-Qurtubi has related a very illuminating incident. The fourth Khalifah Sayyidna ‘Ali saw a man preaching in the mosque. He asked the people what the man was doing. On being told that he was preaching, the blessed Khalifah said: "He is not doing anything of the sort, but only announcing to the people that he is such and such a man and the son of such and such, and asking them to recognize and remember him." Calling the man to his side, he asked: "Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones?" When he confessed that he did not, the Khalifah turned him out of the mosque, and ordered him to never preach there.


In "The Qur’an and its Exegesis"[17] Helmut Gätje quotes Zamakhshari and Baidawi on 2:106:

Zamakhshari and on 2:106:

(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: "Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow." Thereupon this verse came down.

Instead of whatever verse We abrogate (nansakh), some read: whatever verse we allow (or cause ) to be abrogated (nunsikh)...

To abrogate a verse means that God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated; that is, he commands Gabriel to set forth the verse as abrogated by announcing its cancellation. Deferring a verse means that God sets is aside (with the proclamation_ and causes it to disappear without a substitute.


Baidawi on the same verse:

… This verse proves the possibility of abrogation and of the postponement of revelation, since it concerns the rule (asl) that (the Arabic word) in (‘if’) (as the particle of the real conditional sentence), in addition to the contents of the verse, refers to the (entire) range of possible things. It is true that the introduction of regulation and the sending down of verses for the benefit of the servants (of God) and the perfecting of their souls result from divine goodness and mercy. However, regarding different ages and persons there are distinctions in this, just as there are different means of livelihood. What can be of use in one age can be harmful in another.




The great Muslim scholars agreed that various types of abrogation took place. The more I study this, the more references I see that state these early, great, Muslim scholars accepted and taught the traditional understanding of abrogation. There were so many great scholars accepting it that the Maariful didn’t feel the need to cover them all. Note that Qurtubi is blunt: only the "ignorant and the dull-headed" deny Quranic abrogation.





Of course various Islamic tomes discuss the doctrine of abrogation. It is too important and substantial a topic to ignore.



A prominent concept in the fields of quranic commentary and Islamic law which allowed the harmonization of apparent contradictions in legal rulings. …

The quranic evidence

"We will make you recite so you will not forget except what God wills" (Q 87:6-7) and "We do not abrogate (nansakh) a verse or cause it to be forgotten without bringing a better one or one like it" (Q 2:106) introduced the idea that God might cause his Prophet to forget materials not intended to appear in the final form of the text (J. Burton, Collection, 64). This interpretation could be reinforced by reference to "We substitute (baddalna) one verse in the place of another"(Q 16:101). The concept of "omission" was added to the growing list of meanings assigned to abrogation (Qurtubi), Jami’, ii, 62). According to one report, one night two men wished to incorporate into their prayer a verse which they had learned and had already used, but they found that they could not recall a syllable. The next day they reported this to the Prophet, who replied that the passage had been withdrawn overnight and they should put it out of their minds (Qurtubi, Jami’, ii, 63). In another report, the Companion Ibn Mas’ud decided to recite in his prayers one night a verse he had been taught, had memorized and had written into his own copy of the revelations. Failing to recall a syllable of it, he checked his notes only to find the page blank. He reported this to the Prophet who told him that that passage had been withdrawn overnight (Nöldeke, gq, i, 47, ii, 44).



Naskh (A.), or AL-NASIKH WA’L-MANSUKH, is the generic label for a range of theories advanced in the fields of Tafsir, Hadith, and usul al-fikh since a comparison of verse with verse, hadith with hadith, hadith with verse and both Kuran and Hadith with the Fikh suggested frequent, serious conflict.

That the Prophet’s mission had extended over a quarter of a century inspired the idea of gradual development in the details of the regulation introduced in both Kuran and Sunna.

Naskh applies to each of the two sources and to the relations between them. Most accepted the naskh of the Kuran by the Kuran and the naskh of hadith by hadith. The naskh of Kuran by Hadith and of Hadith by Kuran raised more delicate issues which divided the scholars.

‘Abd Allah b. Masud reports that before he emigrated to Abyssinia he used to greet the Prophet on passing him at prayer and the Prophet would return his greeting. On his return, ‘Abd Allah did this, but the Prophet ignored him, and ‘Abd Allah was perplexed. Completing his prayer, the Prophet explained, "God introduces such regulations as He pleases, and He has decreed that when we pray there must be no talking." In this instance of naskh in the Hadith, a later regulation has replaced an earlier practice.

The ruling in Kuran, II, 180 that the Muslim make testamentary provision for parents and nearest kin was thought to have been revoked on the revelation of IV, 10-11, whose rulings allot to the relatives specific shares in a deceased’s estate. Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situation call for different regulations. This is an instance of naskh in the Kuran.

Chronology is the key to the resolution of the difference, since a divine book cannot contain contradictions, IV, 82.




I only used specific sections out of the entire articles because the tomes go into a lot of detail that is not necessary for this discussion. However, they affirm that the traditional understanding of abrogation is supported by the majority of scholars.





Mahmoud M. Ayoub, in his "The Quran and Its Interpreters"[20], page 139, quotes from a number of famous Muslim scholars. Here are some of their statements on 2:106.

"Wahadi says that this verse was sent down because the associators said, "Do you not see Muhammad, how he commands his people to do something, then forbids them to do it and commands them to do its opposite? Today he says one thing and tomorrow he changes his mind regarding it. The Qur'an is no more than the words of Muhammad, which he utters from himself. It is composed of words which contradict one another." Thus says Wahidi, God sent down verse 101 of al-Nahl (Q. 16), and this verse (Wahidi, p. 32: see also Zamakhshari, I. p. 303). Tabari interprets abrogation (naskh) broadly as "what we [that is, God] abrogate regarding the precept of a verse which we change, or for which we substitute another, so that what is lawful may become unlawful and what is unlawful may become lawful; what is permitted may become prohibited and what is prohibited may become permitted. This however, can only be done with regard to commands and prohibitions... but as for reports or narratives, they can neither be abrogated nor can they abrogate" (Tabari, II, pp. 471-472; see also Shawkani, I, pp. 125-126)."


There have been moderate Muslims who have honestly evaluated what "abrogation" means in context to an all-knowing God. The Muslim scholar Ali Dashti[21] writes:

It must always be borne in mind that most of the Qor'anic laws and ordinances were formulated in response to random incidents and petitions from aggrieved persons. That is why there are some inconsistencies in them and why there are abrogating and abrogated ordinances....The Qor'anic laws are brief and were insufficient for the needs of the huge Moslem community which came into being in the century and a half after the Prophet's lifetime, page 54.

Related to Sura 33:52:

In Zamakhshari's opinion, "A'esha's words show that verse 52 was abrogated by custom and by verse 49 ("O Prophet, We have made lawful for you...."). But an abrogating verse ought to come after the abrogated one. Nevertheless Soyuti, in his treatise on Qor'anic problems entitled ol-Etqan, maintains that in this case the earlier verse abrogated the later one, page 128

Change of mind after the taking of a decision or making of a plan is a normal and frequent occurrence in the lives of human beings, who cannot at any time know all the relevant facts... It is contrary to reason, however, that God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, should revise His commands...

It is precisely because God is capable of everything that He would not reveal a verse and then abrogate it. Since omniscience and omnipotence are essential attributes of the Creator, He must be able to issue commands which do not need revision. Every thoughtful person who believes in One Almighty God is bound to ask why He should proclaim a command and then revoke it, … pages 154, 155.


The Islamic scholar, A. Guillaume, who taught Islamic Sciences at the University of London, Princeton, and American University of Beirut, commented on the sword verse 9:5 abrogating other verses. He writes in "Islam"[22]:

But it is much more difficult to adjust the words of a book which has been dictated by God himself. An inspired man can err at times: an inspired book cannot... page 187.


In "Behind the Veil"[23], page 220, the writer states that:

In Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 19, the Suyuti says that, "Ibn Abbas himself said, ‘Sometimes the revelation used to descend on the prophet during the night and then he forgot it during daytime, thus God sent down this verse: 2:106.’"





Naturally, Muslims are aware of the theological problems this subject presents. It casts doubt upon the character of both God and Muhammad and breeds theological confusion. Some agree with the traditional understanding of abrogation, others do not. Here are various defenses related to this doctrine.

Let's start with Yusuf Ali's commentary found in his English Translation of the Quran[24]. He supports the traditional explanation of abrogation and defends it:

On Sura 2:106:

What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense it means that God's message from age to age is always the same, but that its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat (revelation) of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. ...There may be express abrogation, or there may be "causing or permitting to forget." How many good and wise institutions gradually become obsolete by efflux of time? Then there is the gradual process of disuse or forgetting in evolution. This does not mean that eternal principles change. It is only a sign of Allah's infinite Power that His creation should take so many forms and shapes not only in the material world but in the world of man's thought and expression.


Taking a contrarian’s position, Muhammad Asad[25] denies the traditional doctrine of abrogation. In footnote 87 on Sura 2:106 he wrote:

... The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ('message') occurring in this context is also used to denote a ‘verse’ of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been ‘abrogated’ by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs of his manuscript, deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been ‘abrogated’. At the root of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ may lie the inability of some early commentators to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another, a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been ‘abrogated’. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ as to which, and how many, Qur’an-verses have been affected by it; and furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected ..." Asad, "Message of the Qur’an", Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993, pp. 22-23, n. 87; online edition


Jeffrey Lang follows Asad and wrote in The American Muslim[26]:

As I see it, the theory of abrogation, although widely accepted by Muslim scholars, has several weak points. To begin with, there is no explicit authenticated saying of Muhammed that states this theory or that asserts that some verse has permanently annulled another. All of the hadith (reports of sayings of the Prophet) that speak of abrogation are considered weak by Muslim experts. If a Companion of the Prophet felt that one verse permanently cancelled another, that was his or her personal interpretation. For Muslims, only a statement of Muhammed that a verse had been abrogated should be authoritative and there exist no reliable reports of this nature.

Verses 2:106 and 16:101 of the Quran are often cited in support of the theory of abrogation, but the context indicates that the annulled revelations referred to are those received by prophets that came before Prophet Muhammad; at the very least, this would be a very natural and plausible interpretation.

Finally, the theory of abrogation appears to claim that God has placed in the last revelation to mankind superfluous information and He has had to frequently correct Himself in the process of revealing it. This perception is very hard to square with the Quran’s depiction of God. Not surprisingly, quite a number of converts to Islam informed me that they were shocked and their faith severely shaken when they first discovered this theory.

Therefore, I feel that there is no real need or justification for the classical theory of abrogation. Yet without this theory, the Quran cannot be used to support waging war other than in self-defense or against oppression. This is proved by the fact that such a massive application of the theory of abrogation is needed to justify the type of military expansion advocated by the dar al Islam/dar al harb formula. Clearly, the Quran’s passages that deal with warfare weigh heavily against such unprovoked aggression.


But, on the other hand, the writers at Islamic Awareness accept the doctrine in full and state[27]:

It is clear that the concept of abrogation: the nullifying of an older commandment or practice in favour of a newer law, is nothing new and it has been practiced by God for aeons. What we know is that the laws governing the mankind (i.e., Shariah) changes according to the needs of the society. But the concept of monotheism (i.e., Tawheed) remains the same. The Creator knows very well that his creation, the humans, need time and discipline to grow and mature, He reveals commandments and practices that help them develop both as individuals and as members of society. All Praise be to the God, Lord of the Worlds.


So, who’s right, Ali and I-A or Asad and Lang? Both groups cannot be right, someone is wrong about this integral topic. How are Muslims to understand the Quran if they cannot tell what is, and what isn’t applicable?




The overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars accept the traditional doctrine of abrogation. Of course there are disagreements and variations on minor points, but the central theme, that one verse cancels another, is common to all.

But not all Muslims accept the doctrine of abrogation, especially people who have converted to Islam from the West. They know intuitively that there is something askance with the concept of a god who willy-nilly makes changes, or has to change things in a short period of time to get it right. Therefore they reject the doctrine outright, in the face of the evidence, because as Lang notes above, it weakens their faith.

Therefore men like Asad and Lang must discredit the Sahih collections of Bukhari and Muslim, the biographical information of Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq, and the massive weight of traditional Islamic scholarship. They don’t want their god appearing to be a fool. However their counter-arguments are flimsy and bear no scrutiny.

Asad, (and Lang) argue that:

"there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an to have been ‘abrogated’.


As posted above the sahih (authentic) Hadith contain numerous examples of Companions saying that various verses have been abrogated. Are the Companions reliable? And if they’re reliable, shouldn’t their narrations be accepted or at least given the benefit of the doubt unless other Islamic source material proves otherwise? Do Asad or Lang have such material?

Ibn Sa’d states plainly that Gabriel recited the Quran twice to Muhammad in the year that he died and thereafter Muhammad met with Ibn Masud to review what had been abrogated. Neither Muhammad or Ibn Masud were familiar enough with the other Scriptures to evaluate them. Is Ibn Sa’d’s statement unreliable?

Asad’s footnote does not provide any evidence or support from the Islamic source materials for his argument. He has none. The concept simply embarrasses him and so he rejects it. He asserts:

"In short, the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected."


Yet it is Asad that fails to provide a basis or facts. If one reads the Sira, one finds the historical facts and cannot escape abrogation. But abrogation makes Asad’s god a dufus and he would have none of that.


Like Asad, Lang experiences the same discomfort. He repeats Asad’s claim that no authentic hadith has Muhammad saying a verse was abrogated. He goes further and denigrates the Companions:

If a Companion of the Prophet felt that one verse permanently cancelled another, that was his or her personal interpretation.


Lang attacks the Companions who relate instances of abrogation. He is saying that their understanding of abrogation is incorrect, that they didn’t get it right. But I’ve got to ask, "How did all these different Companions derive the same incorrect understanding of abrogation, i.e. that one Quranic verse cancels another? Who taught them this false doctrine, or did they individually and independently come up with it? Why didn’t Muhammad or another Companion correct them?" Were all of them so far removed from Muhammad and was their understanding the Quran so inaccurate, that they could all invent, accept, and teach the same error?

In sum, Lang is saying that these companions innovated and taught false doctrines deliberately!

Isn’t it possible that the Companions could have learned the doctrine of abrogation from Muhammad? After all, what does Aisha gain by saying that ten sucklings were abrogated by five? Why would Muhammad have to meet with Ibn Masud to discuss what was abrogated if nothing was abrogated?

Lang also asserts that:

Verses 2:106 and 16:101 of the Quran are often cited in support of the theory of abrogation, but the context indicates that the annulled revelations referred to are those received by prophets that came before Prophet Muhammad; at the very least, this would be a very natural and plausible interpretation.


But Lang is wrong about the context. Here are two contexts provided by Ayoub and Suyuti above.

Wahadi says that this verse was sent down because the associators said, "Do you not see Muhammad, how he commands his people to do something, then forbids them to do it and commands them to do its opposite? Today he says one thing and tomorrow he changes his mind regarding it. The Qur'an is no more than the words of Muhammad, which he utters from himself. It is composed of words which contradict one another.

In Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 19, the Suyuti says that, "Ibn Abbas himself said, "Sometimes the revelation used to descend on the prophet during the night and then he forgot it during daytime, thus God sent down this verse: 2:106.


Both of these scholars detail differing reasons behind 2:106: but both refer to a change or contradiction within the Quran. Muhammad was not being accused of distorting or abrogating other Scriptures, he was accused of distorting his own! (By the way, Wahadi and Suyuti are considered the top scholars in the field of "Asbab al-Nuzul", i.e. the occasions or circumstances behind the various passages of Quranic revelation.)


Like Asad, Lang provides no Islamic source material support to his argument that abrogation is meant for only other people’s Scriptures.

Finally, Lang admits what really bothers him about the doctrine of abrogation:

  1. New converts are troubled that this doctrine casts Allah in a capricious light
  2. Islamic violence depends on the later violent verses canceling out the earlier peaceful verses.


I agree with Lang. Abrogation does portray Allah as being all too human, and it is an important doctrine with respect to establishing Islamic violence. Qurtubi would call Lang "ignorant and the dull-headed" but I think Lang is just trying to cover up for Allah, (or is that Muhammad?), even if it means he has to denigrate Muhammad’s Companions. I encourage Lang to innovate in Islam in order to make is less violent.



Asad argued that "the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact." Actually there are several well known examples that exist and I want to discuss one and tie it into point #2 above. Ibn Ishaq details the occasion of the revelation called, "The Order to Fight", which is composed of two passages: 22:39-41 and 2:193.

While living in Mecca, Muhammad was told by Allah that he was not to use force against his adversaries, but rather he was to simply warn them of impending doom. But just before he fled to a group of armed supported in Medina, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation allowing him to fight the Quraysh both offensively and defensively.

Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged. God has power to grant them victory: those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: "Our Lord is God." Had God not defended some men by the might of others, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and mosques in which His praise is daily celebrated, would have been utterly destroyed. But whoever helps God shall be helped by Him. God is powerful and might: He will assuredly help those who, once made masters in the land, will attend to their prayers and render the alms levy, enjoy justice and forbid evil. God controls the destiny of all things. 22:39-41

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist fight none except the evil-doers. 2:193


This context is provided in the biographical work of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulallah, (The Life of Muhammad", by Guillaume, pages 212, 213).


The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia, others to Medina.

When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.

The first verse which was sent down on this subject from what I have heard from Urwa b. Al-Zubayr and other learned persons was: "Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged. God is well able to help them, --- those who have been driven out of their houses without right only because they said God is our Lord. Had not God used some men to keep back others, cloister and churches and oratories and mosques wherein the name of God is constantly mentioned would have been destroyed. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is Almighty. Those who if we make them strong in the land will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity. To God belongs the end of matters". The meaning is "I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them." Then God sent down to him: "Fight them so that there be no more seduction," i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. "And the religion is God's," i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.


Regarding 2:193, the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, op cit, states:

Then Allah orders Muslims to kill the disbelievers "until there is no more Fitnah." According to Ibn Abbas and others, "Fitnah" means polytheism, "And religion (worship), is for Allah" meaning Allah’s religion should stand supreme and overshadowing the rest of the religions. In the Sahihayn, it is reported that the Prophet said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says it will save his life and property from me except on breaking the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah""


Ali Dashti notes that:

"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax." Dashti, "23 Years", page 97


The historians detail exactly what we are talking about: a change from "no violence, only warning", to, "fight and kill the pagans". Allah abrogated his rules for Muhammad. Muhammad was no longer the warner, now he was a warrior. Defensive and aggressive violence against non-Muslims was now allowed, taught, and practiced. And note, not long after the Order to Fight was revealed Muhammad was raiding, plundering, and killing, people of caravans (which started the war with Mecca), and Pagan tribes.





Most Muslims who accept abrogation provide similar justifications: it was an improvement for the community. Yet this does not stand the test of reason. Let's examine two of the abrogations and compare them with the Muslim's defense.

#1) The change of Qibla.

At one time the Muslims faced Jerusalem to bow and pray. Later, in Medina, Muhammad said God had told him to now face Mecca to pray. All this involved was having the Muslims rotate about 160 degrees and bow towards Mecca instead of Jerusalem.

Western scholars will tell you that part of Muhammad's reason for changing the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca was because the Jews in Medina totally rejected him and Islam. Here is the text in the Quran concerning it from Sura 2:142-144.

"The foolish will ask, "What has made them turn away from their Qibla?"... We decreed your former Qibla only in order that We might know the Apostle's true adherents and those who were to disown him. It was indeed a hard test, but not to those whom God has guided....We will make you turn towards a Qibla that will please you. Turn your face towards the Holy Mosque, wherever you be, turn your faces towards it."


In Tabari’s History[28] volume 7, pages 24-5 the background of this abrogation is given:

"...the majority (of early Muslim scholars) say that it (the Qibla) was changed ...18 months after the arrival of (Muhammad). …

"The Prophet turned toward Jerusalem for 16 months, and then it reached his ears that the Jews were saying, "By God, Muhammad and his companions did not know where their Qibla was until we directed them." This displeased the Prophet and he raised his face toward Heaven, and said, "We have seen the turn of your face to Heaven."


The introduction, (written by W. M. Watt), to volume 7 of Tabari says:

The change of Qibla and the institution of the fast of Ramadan are not purely questions of religious observance but are linked with political matters. Muhammad had from an early date become convinced that the revelations he received were identical in essence to those which were the basis of Judaism and Christianity; he therefore expected that the Jews of Medina would accept him as a prophet. Consequently, when he came to Medina, he was disappointed to find that the Jews there, far from accepting his prophethood, were mostly inclined to poke fun at his revelations. (page xxiii).


Muhammad plays the apologist in 2:142. He hated the Jews and in his anger changed his followers’ direction of prayer, from what they had in common with the Jews, i.e. towards Jerusalem, to face the Pagan temple, the Kaaba. To justify this change he says it was Allah’s way to test their faith.

But what was the "hard test"? Was it a test similar to Abraham's test? Was it a test to stand and remain faithful in the face of persecution? Was it a test to endure hardship for the sake of a mission? All they had to do was rotate their bodies and get on with it. It certainly was no test of faith. Didn't many of these Muslims in Medina already endure persecution in Mecca? Didn't they travel the hundreds of miles to move to Medina? Didn't many of the Muslims in Medina previously say they would receive him as their prophet prior to his arrival in Medina? Therefore it would not matter to them if their new prophet said, "Turn south now, instead of north". You never hear of any grumbling from the Muslims about this as you do concerning the humiliating Treaty of Hudaybiyah.


Now then, let's compare the change of Qibla to what the Muslim apologists Ali and Islamic Awareness wrote to justify abrogation.

How did changing the Qibla meet the needs of the Muslim community? It didn't matter which way they faced to pray. How is this progressive revelation? What progressed? And if the change in Qibla was really needed, why did it take Allah 18 months to get the message to Muhammad? Why was it only "revealed" after the Jews mocked him?


#2) The ability of the fighting men.

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. 8:65

God has now lightened your burden, for He knows that you are weak. If there are a hundred steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a thousand, they shall, by God's will, defeat two thousand. God is with those that are steadfast." 8:66.


First Allah says 100 Muslims can beat 1000 infidels. Then God changes it because the Muslims were weak, and Allah says 100 Muslim can beat 200 infidels.

Certainly this makes things easier for the Muslims. They weren't required by God to beat 10 to 1 odds. Now all they had to do was beat 2 to 1 odds. But didn't God know their abilities before He changed His mind? This type of ignorance is common to man, but not to God. And, if Allah was telling the truth in verse 66, that He was "with those that are steadfast", then wouldn’t He back up his word and guarantee them victory instead of changing and compromising his word?

The Muslim’s defense sounds good, "improvement", but it does not stand up under scrutiny. Reducing the battle odds is beneficial of course but not progressive, rather it is regressive, and says that Allah got the odds wrong the first time.




The Quran proclaims itself as being sound and unchanging:

  1. "Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies." 4:82
  2. "The word of God shall never change..." 10:64

Yet it abrogates and changes itself. From the very beginning until now people have seen through Muhammad’s claims and found much discrepancy. Indeed, it is "from other than Allah."

The source materials prove that the traditional doctrine of abrogation is the correct one, i.e. the Quran abrogates itself. The argument that abrogation does not affect the Quran is gossamer.

Some of the abrogations may not be serious contradictions, but the Quran claims that it is "nazil" which means "brought down" from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original, uncreated, preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur'an proceeded (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. The root is corrupt.

The doctrine of abrogation presents God as capricious, erratic, and changeable, and it casts Muhammad in a doubtful light. This god couldn't make up his mind and because of his confusion Muslims today are uncertain about what rules are applicable in their own religion. Muhammad's "god" appears to be all too human. Muhammad’s god appears to be Muhammad. Like Felix the Cat..."whenever he gets in a fix, he reaches into his bag of tricks", Muhammad used his god when he needed to get out of a jam, or change the way he wanted things done.

These abrogations shaped Islam over Muhammad’s 23 years of claimed prophethood. As Muhammad grew in power Islam changed from peaceful to violent. If it is true that "the measure of a man is what he does with power," then Muhammad proved himself to be a small man for he used his power to subject people brutally and compel them to accept Islam. The trail of blood behind Muhammad grew ever wider.

The Quran’s god is not God. Muslims who put their faith in Muhammad and the Quran will one day, to their horror, see that they have been duped.








[1] “Islam: Muhammad and His Religion", page 66, by Arthur Jeffery, pub. by Bobs Merril

[2] "Dictionary of Qur'anic Terms and Concepts", by Muntasir Mir, pub. by Garland

[3] "Hughes Dictionary of Islam", page 520, by P. Hughes, pub. by Reference Book

[4] "The Quran and its Interpreters", page 20, by Mahmoud Ayoub, pub by SUNY

[5] http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/qurcontr.html

[6] "Introduction to the Quran", by Richard Bell, pub. by R. & R. Clark

[7] "The Koran", by N. J. Dawood, pub. by Penguin

[8] http://www.brillonline.nl/public/abrogation#q3_id2750826

[9] Bukhari, Muhammad, “Sahih Bukhari”, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1987, translated by M. Khan

[10] Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih Muslim”, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971, translated by A. Siddiqi

[11] Guillaume, A., "The Life of Muhammad", a translation of Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah", Oxford University Press, Karachi, Pakistan

[12] Ibn Sa'd, (d. 852 A.D.), "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq, Pakistan Historical Society

[13] al-Misri, Ahmad, “Reliance of the Traveler”, (A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law), translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, published by Amana publications, Beltsville, Maryland, USA 1991

[14] http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=2938

[15] http://altafsir.com

[16] http://www.islamibayanaat.com/MQ/English-MaarifulQuran-MuftiShafiUsmaniRA-Vol-1-Page-235-284.pdf

[17] Gätje, Helmut, "The Quran and its Exegesis", Oneworld, Oxford, England, 1997

[18] http://www.brillonline.nl/public/abrogation

[19] Encyclopadia of Islam, published by Brill, Leiden, Netherlands

[20] Ayoub, Mahmoud, "The Quran and Its Interpreters" vol. II - The House of Imran, Albany, N.Y.; State University of New York Press, 1992

[21] Dashti, Ali, “23 Years: A Study in the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, Mazda, Costa Mesa, CA, 1994, translated by F.R.C. Bagley

[22] "Islam", by A. Guillaume, pub. by Penguin

[23] "Behind the Veil, Unmasking Islam", pub. by Voice of the Martyrs. 1-918-337-8015

[24] "The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an", by Yusuf Ali, pub. by Amana Corporation

[25] Asad, “Message of the Qur’an”, Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993, pp. 22-23, n. 87; online edition

[26] http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/on_the_theory_of_abrogation_naskh_in_the_quran/

[27] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/abrogate.html

[28] "The History of al-Tabari", by M. V. MacDonald, pub. by SUNY

Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page