Chapter Ten
The Abrogator
and Abrogated Qur’anic Verses
In
chapter 2:106, the Qur’an plainly indicates,
"Such of our revelation as we abrogate
or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or
the like thereof."
In their interpretation of this verse (p.
16), the Jalalan say that God’s intention for this verse is,
"To eliminate the ordinance of the verse
either with its wording or to keep the wording and eliminate the
ordinance, or we make you O, Muhammad, to forget it; namely, we
will remove it from your heart" (p. 16).
The Baydawi says in p. 22,
"This verse was given because the Jews
and the infidels said that Muhammad ordered his followers to
do something, then He prohibited them from it and commanded
them to do something opposite to it. Abrogation means
eliminating reading it as an act of worship or eliminating
the ordinance inferred from it, or both of them. To forget
it means to remove it from hearts."
Refer also to the Zamakh-shari in
"al-Kash-shaf" (part I, p. 303). In part 3, p. 59 the Suyuti
says, "Abrogation means the removal as it is mentioned in
chapter Haj: 52, and it means alteration."
In his book, "The History of Islamic Law"
(p. 115), Dr. Shalabi states,
"The abrogation is to rescind
something and replace it with something else, as ibn Hazm
said. Muslims in general have consented that abrogation has
taken place in the Qur’an as it is clearly indicated in the
sound verses."
This statement means that Muhammad was
accustomed to stating something to his followers with the claim
that it was revealed to him through the angel Gabriel, then
later (maybe after a few hours), he would tell them that God had
invalidated it. Thus the infidels used to say, "Muhammad utters
something today and abolishes it tomorrow" (refer to
Zamakh-shari, part I, p. 303).
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."
Is it acceptable or sensible to think that
God changes His mind during the night? Ibn ’Abbas is not the
only one who insists on that because ibn ’Umar says,
"Two men read a Sura which the apostle
of God had taught them, yet one night they rose up to pray
but they failed to remember one word of it. The next
morning, they went to the apostle of God and related it to
him. He told them, ‘It is one of those, which have been
abrogated, thus, forget about it.."’ (Refer to the Itqan,
3:74).
Such strange behavior led the infidels to
say that Muhammad is a calumniator and he does not receive
inspiration from God for he changes his mind whenever he wishes
or says, "I forgot the verse because God made me forget it and
it was abrogated". Thus, a verse was written in the Qur’an
referring to this debate which was waged between Muhammad and
the infidel. The verse says,
"And when we put one revelation in
place of another revelation—and Allah knows best what He
reveals— they say, ‘To! thou art but inventing"’ (16:101).
In his above-mentioned book, Dr. Shalabi
attempts to defend the concept of abrogation. He remarks,
"God changes His ordinances according
to the change of time and circumstances, therefore, the
abrogation and the giving of one verse instead of the verses
of the Qur’an took place" (p. 116).
The reader can easily realize that this
defense is meaningless and will not suffice because
circumstances do not change drastically in a few night hours as
ibn ’Abbas has claimed when he said that the verse would be
received during the night and abrogated in daytime. Dr. Shalabi,
in the context of his defense, says,
"Most of what was alluded to in the
abrogated verses was intended to lighten (the ordinances)"
(p. 117).
In part 3, p. 69 of the" Itqan", the
Suyuti refers to the same reason. It is left to the reader to
answer this question, "Did God not know the circumstances of His
worshippers and their abilities so that He made it a habit to
decree an ordinance or dictate an order, then change His mind
and replace it immediately the next day with a lighter command
or an easier commandment?" The fact is that Muhammad has
failed to comprehend his followers' circumstances, thus he used
to order something, then change it the next day whenever he
found it too difficult to be implemented. For example, the
Qur’an says,
"O prophet! Exhort the believers to
fight. If there be twenty steadfast among you, they shall
overcome two hundred and if there be a hundred steadfast
among you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who
disbelieve. Now has Allah lightened your burden for he knows
that there is weakness in you. So if there is among you one
hundred who are steadfast, they shall overcome two
hundred."
This verse always confuses Muslims when
they fight Israel in their efforts to liberate Palestine and the
mosque (Al Aqusa).
The verses say that Allah lightened your
(task) for He knows that there is a weak spot in you! Did God
not know that each one of them had a weak spot before He told
them that "each one of you can vanquish ten"? God had to change
His mind and say that "each one of you can vanquish two" only.
The Suyuti says,
"When God imposed on them that each
one of them should fight ten, it became a burden and an
unbearable (task) for them. Thus, God removed the burden
from them and each one was (requested) to fight two men."
(Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 134).
Both Baydawi (p. 244), and Dr. Shalabi (p.
117) agree with him. Another illustration on this "lightening"
is found in Sura 73:1,2,20.
"O thou wrapped up in your raiment,
keep vigil the night long save a little" (73:1,2). "Allah
measures the night and the day. He knows that you count it
not and turns unto you in mercy. Recite, then of the Qur’an
why it is easy for you" (73:20).
On p. 117, 123, Dr. Shalabi along with
Suyuti says,
"The Qur’anic verse: ‘Stand (to pray)
by night, but not all night’ was abrogated by the end of the
Sura; then was abrogated again by (the implementation) of
the five prayers."
The entire Sura is only 20 verses. Its
beginning is abrogated by its end, and its end is replaced by
the injunction of the five prayers; that is, the Abrogator has
been abrogated. In relation to this verse the Jalalan say (p.
491),
"When God imposed the night prayers,
Muslims’ feet swelled as they stood during the night (for
prayer); thus, God lightened it for them by saying, ‘Pray as
much as you are able."’
Did God not know that this ordinance was
going to be difficult for Muslims? Why did He not tell them that
from the beginning before their feet became swollen?
A third illustration relevant to this
discussion is the Qur’anic saying, "Fear Allah as He should be
feared" (3:102). This commandment is abrogated by His saying,
"Fear God as much as you are able to do so" (64:16). This is the
claim of the Muslim scholars (refer to Suyuti in Asbab al-Nuzul,
p. 277; Jalalan pp. 53, 473, Dr. Shalabi, p. 122). On p. 53, the
Jalalan say,
"On the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr,
he said, when the verse ‘Fear God as He should be feared’
was sent down, it became very hard for the people to do so;
therefore, God bestowed, in order to lighten on the people,
‘Fear God as much as you can."’
The question is now why did God send down
this abrogating verse after Muslims said to the apostle of God,
"Who can do that?" Why, only after this objection, was
this easy verse was sent down to abrogate the first one?
I believe that these illustrations are
sufficient to prove the points under discussion. If anyone is
interested to know more about this subject, we would refer him
to the books of Suyuti and many other authors. They are filled
with such examples.
Two Reasons: Lightening And
Forgetting
We believe that the reason behind the
concept of abrogation is that Muhammad intended to make the
performing of the Islamic rites and worship easier on his
followers and to obtain their approval and satisfaction with his
teachings. If he decreed something which later seemed to be too
difficult for them to implement and they remonstrated against
it, he would "lighten" it immediately and claim that God had
ordered him to rescind what he previously uttered, and all the
verses he recited were replaced by new ones.
Whenever he forgot what he related
to his followers, he spared himself the embarrassment by
claiming that God had abrogated what he conveyed to them before.
There is no doubt that Muhammad tended to forget. This is clear
from the above illustrations and the incidents recorded in the
Sahih of the Bukhari, (part 3, p. 223, and part 8, p. 91). The
Bukhari says,
"Aisha said, The prophet heard a man
reciting in the mosque. He said, ‘May God have mercy on him,
he has reminded me of such and such verses which I dropped
from Sura so and so."’
So Muhammad sometimes used to forget some
verses and his friends had to remind him of them, but whenever
he did not find anybody to remind him, he claimed that they had
been abrogated. We saw this before when two of his followers
came to him to help them to remember some of the verses which he
had taught them. Muhammad told them these verses had "... been
abrogated, forget about them!" So abrogation in the Qur’an was
the result of forgetfulness or to lighten the task for the
Muslims.
Forgetfulness is plainly mentioned in the
verse we quoted at the beginning of this discussion (Sura 2:106)
and it was interpreted by Muslim religious scholars who affirmed
that God used to make Muhammad forget and remove from his heart
what he had revealed to him before as ibn ’Abbas, who was among
Muhammad’s closest friends, admits to us.
Surely none of us believes that God
suffers a wavering mind and changes his opinion in a few hours.
We can believe that Muhammad himself was subject to
forgetfulness and made it a habit to change his mind in order to
please his followers.
Types of
Abrogation
Without exception, all Muslim religious
scholars state that abrogation not only includes the abolishing,
dropping or replacing of a verse by another verse but it also
includes abolishing a provision of the verse without eliminating
its wording or text from the Qur’an. Refer to Shalabi (p. 119),
the" Itqan" (part 3, p. 63), ibn Hazm in "The Nasikh and the
Mansukh" and others. Throughout three pages, the Suyuti provides
us with many examples, but Dr. Shalabi, who is the professor of
Islamic history tends not to agree with him on some of these
examples. He says,
"I have a personal inclination to say
that not so many abrogations took place in the Qur’an" (p.
118).
We do not really care whether the
abrogated verses are many or few, what we do care for is the
concept itself. We wonder if the provision of the verse is
abrogated or abolished why its text should continue to be placed
in the Qur’an and to be read. The Suyuti attempts to answer this
question by saying, "... so as Muslims will be rewarded whenever
they read it" (part 3, p. 69). It is as if the rest of the
Qur’an were not sufficient reading for obtaining the reward, or
as if the reward is acquired by more reciting even if they are
verses whose provisions are abolished and are not in effect
anymore! !
We have already mentioned some examples
pertaining to this type of abrogation, yet it is appropriate to
allude to all the verses which call for peace and forgiveness of
the infidel here. These verses are all abrogated by other verses
which call for war. All religious Muslim scholars attest to this
fact as we mentioned in chapter one. Thus, no one should believe
that the Qur’an calls for peace because all these ‘peaceful’
verses are recorded in it. All of them are abrogated as all the
Muslim scholars attest. The Suyuti says in this respect,
"The order for Muslims to be patient
and forgiving was issued when they were few and weak, but
when they became strong, they were ordered to fight and the
previous verses were abrogated" (part 3, p. 61).
Ibn ’Arabi said, "The verse of the ‘sword’
has abrogated 124 verses" (p. 69).
What is the second type of abrogation? It
is a very strange type of abrogation, stranger than the previous
one because it abrogates its recitation and retains its
provision; that is, it keeps it in effect. If you wondered
and asked what is the wisdom of that, you will find that the
Suyuti himself asked the same logical question and endeavored to
answer it. In part 3, p. 72, he says
"The recitation of some verses
is abrogated though their provisions are retained.
Some people in this respect, asked a question, ‘What is the
wisdom in abolishing the recitation and retaining the
provision? Why was not the recitation retained so that the
implementation of the provision and the reward of reciting
it will be combined?’ Some have answered, ‘That is to show
the extent of this nation’s obedience without any preference
to seek a determined path"’ (Al Itqan
. Refer also to Kishk legal opinions, part
4, p. 64. Sheik Kishk admitted this strange type of
abrogation).
The Suyuti throughout these pages,
presents many illustrations for this strange type of abrogation.
It is obvious that it is utterly meaningless to abrogate and
abolish a certain verse and to retain its provisions. Concerning
the subject of obedience, this could be manifested in many ways
apart from this strange matter. In his illustrations which the
Suyuti quoted, he relied on ’Umar ibn al-Khattab’s sayings.
Other Strange
Things Related To Abrogation
1) The abrogator precedes the abrogated
In part 3, p. 69 the Suyuti remarks,
"In the Qur’an there is no abrogator
(verse) without being preceded by an abrogated (verse)
except in two verses, and some added a third one, while
others added a fourth verse" (Al Itqan).
Then the Suyuti recorded these verses. We
tell him that even if there is only one verse (not four) this
matter is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Why should an
abrogating verse (with which Muslims are to comply) precede
the abrogated verse? How would an abrogating verse abolish
something which is not yet in existence, then later, the
abrogated verse is revealed and recorded in the Qur’an? Why
should it be recorded if it is already abrogated?
2) In part 3, p. 70, the Suyuti himself
admits to this odd and amazing situation. He indicates,
"One of the wonders of abrogation is a
verse in which its beginning has been abrogated by its end.
There is nothing like it. It is (placed) in the Sura of the
Table 105."
This is Suyuti’s statement which I quoted
word for word.
3) Muhammad’s traditions (sayings and
deeds) abrogate the Qur’an. The majority of Muslim religious
scholars confirm that this truly took place and there is no room
to deny it. One illustration would be the stoning of the married
adulterer. The Qur’an talks only about scourging and exiling the
adulterer, yet Muhammad himself stoned some adulterers. Thus,
stoning the married adulterer (male or female) and not flogging
them, has become Islamic law. The reason for that is that
Muhammad said and did so. Therefore, the Suyuti (part
3, p. 60), as well as Dr. Shalabi (p.
121), has said that Muhammad’s traditions abrogate the Qur’an.
This is also the opinion of ibn Hazm and al-Shafi’i. In this
regard Dr. Shalabi says (page 121),
"God is the source of the ideas
whether they are included in the Qur’an or in one of
Muhammad’s Ahadith (traditions) which is inspired (by God)
and not recorded in the Qur’an."
We believe that such things conform to
sound Islamic thought because such events did take place as we
mentioned before, but we cannot understand why these inspired
traditions which Muhammad received have not been recorded in the
Qur’an. Thus, such verses would abrogate other verses,
especially since the Qur’an says, "We do not abrogate a verse
without revealing a better one or something like it."
Nor do we understand the saying, "... we
will reveal a better one," for is there better than the word of
God? We understand that there could be something like it, but
better? This is something we cannot comprehend or understand.
Before we conclude the subject of
abrogation in the Qur’an there are two things which are worth
mentioning:
First, the disagreement among
Muslim religious scholars in regard to the abrogated verses
despite the seriousness and importance of this matter. The
Suyuti and Dr. Shalabi (along with all Muslim scholars and
chroniclers) agree on a very significant dialogue which took
place between ’Ali ibn Abi Talib and one of the jurisprudents
which demonstrates the importance of knowing the abrogating and
the abrogated verses. On page 120, Dr. Shalabi says,
"Ibn Hazm talks about the necessity of
knowing the abrogating and the abrogated (verses) in the
Qur’an, and that this knowledge is a necessary condition of
legal personal opinion (al-ijtihad). It was related that the
Imam ’Ali saw Sa’id ibn al-Hasan presiding in his capacity
as a judge in Kufa (Iraq). He asked him, ‘Do you know the
abrogating and the abrogated (verses)?’ The judge answered,
‘No.’ He then told him, ‘You have perished and make (others)
to perish."’
No doubt that if the judge does not know
the abrogating and the abrogated (verses), he may issue his
sentence based on an abolished ordinance. A Muslim may ask what
is wrong with that? The problem and the crux of the matter is
that no one knows exactly what the abrogating and the
abrogated (verses) are. Scholars disagree on pinpointing the
abrogated (verses). In page 118, Dr. Shalabi says,
"Some scholars like ibn Hazm in his
book, ‘The Abrogating and Abrogator’ (verses), have
exaggerated (the issue of) abrogation to an extent which is
unacceptable even to linguistic taste. He examined the
Qur’an chapter by chapter and showed the abrogating and the
abrogated in each of them. We disagree with him in
this procedure."
Then, in the same book, "The History of
Islamic Law", he says,
"We have to pinpoint the
abrogating and the abrogated verses to be a ray of light for
the students of the history of Islamic law. We will quote
the Suyuti because he was sparing in his call for
abrogation. He inclines toward rejecting excessive
abrogation. Though the Suyuti believes that the abrogated
verses are twenty, still we do not agree with him on all of
them."
So what can the students of the Islamic
law and the judges like the judge of Kufa do? Ibn Hazm has
recorded many abrogating and abrogated verses, then the Suyuti
came after him and eliminated many of them and ended with only
twenty verses. Later, Dr. Shalabi indicated that he disagreed
even with the Suyuti on some of them. The disagreement on this
matter is not a simple issue. It is very serious because
knowing these verses is a basic condition in applying Islamic
law and in the science of jurisprudence, as Dr. Shalabi
indicated. It is well known that the "Ijtihad" (deduction of a
legal opinion) is the third source of the Islamic law after the
Qur’an and the tradition according to all Muslim scholars (refer
to p. 24). That was the trend during the time of Muhammad, the
companions and the Caliphs—the Qur’an first, then tradition,
then the Itjihad (refer to p. 156).
Secondly: God abrogates any desire
Satan frames in the heart and the tongue of Muhammad. This means
that Satan has the power to infuse certain verses in what
Muhammad claims to be an inspiration from God. Satan was able to
place on Muhammad’s tongue certain words by which he praised the
pagans’ gods. This incident is confirmed and recorded by Suyuti,
Jalalan, ibn Kathir (part 3, p. 229), Baydawi, Zamakhshari, ibn
Hisham, and even ibn Abbas himself along with the rest of the
companions. It is all recorded in the Qur’an, chapter 22:52,
"Never sent we a messenger or a prophet
before you but when he recited the message Satan proposed
(opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof but
Allah abolishes that which Satan proposes."
The Suyuti says in Asbab of the Nuzul (p.
184),
"Muhammad was in Mecca. He read the
chapter of the Star. When he uttered, ‘Have you seen the
Lat, the ’Uzza, and the other third Manat?’, Satan instilled
in his tongue, ‘These are the exulted idols (daughters of
God) whose intercession is hoped.’ The infidels said that
Muhammad had mentioned their gods with good words. Then when
he prostrated, they prostrated, too. Thus, the above verse
22:52 was not inspired."
On page 282 of the Commentary of the
Jalalan, we read the same interpretation, and the Jalalan added,
"Gabriel came to Muhammad after that
and told him that Satan had thrust these words into his
tongue. Muhammad became sad, then Gabriel delivered this
verse to him to comfort him."
This verse, as the Jalalan remarked,
comforted Muhammad because it revealed that all the prophets and
the apostles who came before Muhammad had experienced this trial
and not just Muhammad. It is obvious here that this is false and
spurious because no one ever heard that any of the apostles or
the prophets had been exposed to such trials in which Satan made
them utter what they proclaimed to be a revelation from God,
then they later claimed it was Satan and not God who revealed
it to them. If we refer to the commentary of the Baydawi (p.
447), we find that he agrees with the Suyuti and Jalalan and
adds,
"Muhammad desired that a Qur’an which
brings his people closer to God and does alienate them may
be bestowed on him; thus, Satan ill-whispered these words to
him."
In his book, "The Kash-shaf’, the
Zamakh-shari (part 3, pp. 164, 165), asserts that,
"This episode which Muhammad
experienced is common knowledge and unquestionable, and is
related to us by the companions of Muhammad."
Thank you, Mr. Zamakh-shari!
It is appropriate here to refer to ibn
Hisham’s statement in his book, "The Prophetic Biography". This
book relies on the testimonies of Muhammad’s companions. It is
also the major source for all Muslims who always quote it. In
part 2, p. 126, ibn Hisham says,
"When some Muslims immigrated to
Ethiopia, they received the news that the inhabitants of
Mecca had accepted them. They returned to find that it was
false news The reason was that the apostle of God, as he was
reading the chapter of Star (53:19, 20), mentioned the idols
of Mecca. Satan instilled in his recitation their praises
and he (Muhammad) acknowledged their intervention. The
infidels were overjoyed and said, ‘He mentioned our idols
(gods) with good words.’ Then God sent down this verse
(22:52). Gabriel told Muhammad, ‘I did not bring to you
these verses (about the idols)."’
No one can accuse Salman Rushdi, in regard
to the Satanic verses, of making false claims against Islam and
the Qur’an because this incident is acknowledged by all Muslim
scholars along with Muhammad’s companions and his relatives,
especially ibn ’Abbas himself.
If we cannot comprehend how God abrogates
what He Himself has inspired, we can easily understand that He
abrogates what Satan utters as is recorded in verse (22:52).
Yet, we have here two important questions:
First, how was Satan able to distort the
inspiration and to deceive Muhammad so that he told the people
that these were God’s words, then later he reversed himself and
told them, "No, Satan was the one who ill-whispered to me with
these words?" Muslims believe that prophets and apostles are
infallible—in matters of inspiration, at least.
The second question is also very
important. How was Satan able to imitate the Qur’anic text with
its Arabic eloquence and profound diction? If the Arabic reader
re-read Satan’s words to Muhammad he should immediately realize
that they possess the same Qur’anic literary characteristics,
eloquence and style. It is impossible to distinguish them from
the rest of the Qur’anic verses.
|