Previous · All chapters · Next

B11 · باب النسخ جوازا وتفسيرا · Abrogation: what it is, what it can touch, what can abrogate what, and why adding to a text counts as abrogation (v2/53–86)

1. In short
2. Why it matters
3. B11.01 · معنى النسخ · For God, abrogation only shows when a ruling's term ends; for us, it replaces one ruling with another
4. B11.02 · جواز النسخ · Abrogation can happen in legislated commands and prohibitions that may hold or not; some Jews and a few Muslims deny it
5. B11.03 · محل النسخ · Only an open-ended legislated ruling can be abrogated: not belief in God, not the meaning of reports, not what a text makes permanent or timed
6. B11.04 · نسخ الأخف بالأثقل · A lighter ruling may be abrogated by a heavier one, and a heavier by a lighter
7. B11.05 · شرط النسخ · A ruling can be abrogated once it could be believed, even before anyone could act on it, against the Muʿtazila
8. B11.06 · الناسخ · A mass-transmitted or well-known sunna can abrogate the Qurʾān, and the Qurʾān the Sunna, against al-Shāfiʿī; qiyās and, after the Prophet, a single report cannot
9. B11.07 · وجوه النسخ · Three kinds: the text and its ruling together (only in the Prophet's lifetime), the ruling without the text, and the text without the ruling
10. B11.08 · الزيادة على النص · An addition that changes what suffices under a text, in God's rights or any right that cannot be split, is abrogation in effect, so a single report or qiyās cannot make it

In short

• This chapter asks what abrogation is and what can abrogate what [Overview]. For God it only shows when a ruling's term ends; for us it replaces one ruling with another [B11.01]. The Qurʾān and a strong sunna can abrogate each other; qiyās cannot [B11.06]. An addition that changes what suffices under a text is abrogation in effect, so a single report cannot make it [B11.08].

Back to the list

Why it matters

• Adding a requirement to a Qurʾānic ruling changes what suffices under it, so a single report cannot do it: hence the Fātiḥa is not a pillar of prayer and purity is not a condition of ṭawāf [B11.08].

Back to the list

B11.01 · معنى النسخ · For God, abrogation only shows when a ruling's term ends; for us, it replaces one ruling with another

• In plain words: When God abrogates a ruling, does that mean He changed His mind? Sarakhsī says no. People gloss naskh as transfer, voiding or removal; Sarakhsī says all three are figurative. The term is a legal one, known from the Qurʾān, and its best gloss is "replacement" (tabdīl), a word the Qurʾān itself uses (Q 16:101). As regards God, abrogation only makes clear the term the ruling always had. As regards us, it replaces that ruling with another.
• Example: Sarakhsī compares it to a killing. As regards God, the victim died at his appointed term; as regards the killer, the act is still a crime and he answers for it.
• Who disagrees: ⚑ An author among the Ḥanafī shaykhs found "replacement" far-fetched, since it seems to suggest God changing His mind (badāʾ). Sarakhsī answers:
• In his words: "To me this is an oversight on his part; the word 'replacement' is stated in the Qurʾān": «وَعِنْدِي أَن هَذَا سَهْو مِنْهُ وَعبارَة التبديل مَنْصُوص عَلَيْهِ فِي الْقُرْآن» (v2/54)
• Deeper: v1 B11.01

Back to the list

B11.02 · جواز النسخ · Abrogation can happen in legislated commands and prohibitions that may hold or not; some Jews and a few Muslims deny it

• In plain words: Can God abrogate a command at all? The Muslims' doctrine, Sarakhsī says, is yes, in any command or prohibition that could either hold or not. Rulings are tests, and their benefit changes with times and people, like fasting by day but not by night. A command sets up a ruling without requiring it to last forever, as creating a person does not require him to live forever. Matters of belief are not included (B11.03).
• Example: Marrying one's sibling was lawful in Ādam's law and later forbidden; work on the Sabbath was lawful before Moses.
• Who disagrees: The Jews deny it. Some argue by reason that one thing cannot be both good and bad; some cite a report from Moses about keeping the Sabbath forever. Sarakhsī answers that good and bad clash only at one time in one place, and that the Torah was altered and not mass-transmitted. Some Muslims whose views are "not counted" also deny it, or say it never happened.
• Deeper: v1 B11.02

Back to the list

B11.03 · محل النسخ · Only an open-ended legislated ruling can be abrogated: not belief in God, not the meaning of reports, not what a text makes permanent or timed

• In plain words: What kinds of ruling can be abrogated? Sarakhsī says only a legislated ruling that could equally be timed or permanent. So belief in God, His books and messengers is never abrogated. Most scholars add that the meaning of a report cannot be abrogated either; its recitation may lapse, not its meaning. Nor can a ruling a text makes permanent ("forever"), or one a text gives a time limit. Every ruling as it stood when the Prophet died is also permanent, since abrogation comes only by revelation.
• Example: Ibrāhīm was commanded to sacrifice his son and then stopped. Sarakhsī says this was not abrogation. Ibrāhīm had fulfilled the vision (Q 37:105), and the ram was a ransom taking the son's place, so the command was carried out, not cancelled.
• Who disagrees: "Some people of deviation" allow abrogating reports about the future, citing "God erases what He wills" (Q 13:39). Sarakhsī answers that the verse is about giving life and death, or about erasing and confirming revelation.
• Deeper: v1 B11.03

Back to the list

B11.04 · نسخ الأخف بالأثقل · A lighter ruling may be abrogated by a heavier one, and a heavier by a lighter

• In plain words: Must a new ruling always be easier than the one it replaces? The Ḥanafīs say no: a lighter ruling may be replaced by a heavier one, just as a heavier by a lighter. God erases what He wills, and the benefit may lie in the heavier, as a doctor moves a patient from food to medicine.
• Example: The penalty for zinā went from confinement at home to flogging and stoning. Fasting Ramaḍān went from a choice, with a ransom (fidya) instead, to a duty that must be fasted (Q 2:184–185).
• Who disagrees: al-Shāfiʿī wrote that God abrogated some duties "as mercy and lightening". Some of his followers read this as requiring the new ruling to be lighter, citing "better than it" (Q 2:106) and "now God has lightened for you" (Q 8:66). Other followers read it only as the wisdom behind abrogation. Sarakhsī answers with the heavier replacements above.
• Deeper: v1 B11.04

Back to the list

B11.05 · شرط النسخ · A ruling can be abrogated once it could be believed, even before anyone could act on it, against the Muʿtazila

• In plain words: Can God abrogate a command before anyone has had the chance to carry it out? The Ḥanafīs say yes. A test by belief can matter more than a test by action.
• In his words: "The condition for abrogation, in our view, is the possibility of binding the heart to it; acting, or the possibility of acting, is not a condition": «اعْلَم بِأَن شَرط جَوَاز النّسخ عندنَا هُوَ التَّمَكُّن من عقد الْقلب فَأَما الْفِعْل أَو التَّمَكُّن من الْفِعْل فَلَيْسَ بِشَرْط» (v2/63)
• Example: On the night of the Ascension (Miʿrāj) fifty prayers were made a duty, then reduced to five before any could be prayed. The Prophet, the root of this community, had already accepted the fifty in his heart, so the reduction was a valid abrogation.
• Who disagrees: The Muʿtazila require that acting was possible, or else abrogation would mean God changing His mind. Some cite the charity required before private counsel with the Prophet (Q 58:12–13); the Muʿtazila answer that acting was already possible there. So Sarakhsī calls the Miʿrāj proof the sounder one.
• Deeper: v1 B11.05

Back to the list

B11.06 · الناسخ · A mass-transmitted or well-known sunna can abrogate the Qurʾān, and the Qurʾān the Sunna, against al-Shāfiʿī; qiyās and, after the Prophet, a single report cannot

• In plain words: What can abrogate a Qurʾānic verse, and what can abrogate a sunna? The Ḥanafīs say a mass-transmitted (mutawātir) or well-known (mashhūr) sunna can abrogate the Qurʾān, and the Qurʾān can abrogate the Sunna. The Prophet was sent to explain what was revealed (Q 16:44), and he could show when a recited ruling ends by revelation that is not recited. Qiyās cannot abrogate, since it never gives knowledge. After the Prophet, a single report cannot abrogate the Qurʾān, since it is not known to be his word.
• Example: Praying toward Jerusalem was set by the Sunna and abrogated by the verse on facing the Kaʿba (Q 2:144), so that prayer toward Jerusalem no longer counts.
• Who disagrees: al-Shāfiʿī says neither abrogates the other; his followers differ on whether he meant it cannot happen or never did. Sarakhsī answers from Q 16:44. ⚑ Some Ḥanafī shaykhs let consensus abrogate; most do not, since abrogation happens only in the Prophet's lifetime, when there could be no consensus without him.
• Deeper: v1 B11.06; B11.08

Back to the list

B11.07 · وجوه النسخ · Three kinds: the text and its ruling together (only in the Prophet's lifetime), the ruling without the text, and the text without the ruling

• In plain words: When a verse is abrogated, does its text go, its ruling, or both? Sarakhsī gives three kinds. Text and ruling together could go only in the Prophet's lifetime; after his death, Muslims agree this cannot happen to the Qurʾān. The ruling can go while the text is still recited, for prayer and for its matchless wording. And the text can go while the ruling stays. Even then, we never believe the lifted text was not Qurʾān; only its legal effects end.
• Example: The widow's year-long waiting period (Q 2:240) no longer binds, though the verse is still recited. Consecutive fasting in the oath expiation still binds, from Ibn Masʿūd's reading, though its recitation was lifted in the Prophet's lifetime.
• Who disagrees: "Some heretics hiding behind Islam" allow text-and-ruling abrogation after his death. al-Shāfiʿī, "not thought to agree with them", accepted ʿĀʾisha's report that a verse on "ten sucklings" was abrogated by one on "five", still recited when the Prophet died, so its text was lifted after his death, the very kind Sarakhsī rules out. Sarakhsī's own verdict on that report:
• In his words: "So we know this ḥadīth has no basis": «فَعرفنَا أَنه لَا أصل هَذَا الحَدِيث» (v2/80)
• Deeper: v1 B11.07; B7.15

Back to the list

B11.08 · الزيادة على النص · An addition that changes what suffices under a text, in God's rights or any right that cannot be split, is abrogation in effect, so a single report or qiyās cannot make it

• In plain words: If a single report adds a requirement to a Qurʾānic ruling, is that explaining the verse or changing it? Sarakhsī says it explains in form but abrogates in meaning, when it changes what suffices under the text. God's rights (worship, penalties, expiations) cannot be split: one rakʿa of fajr is not fajr, and part of a ḥadd is no ḥadd. So if exile is added to flogging, flogging alone stops being the whole ḥadd. A people's right that can be split is different: there an addition can simply confirm what was there.
• Example: So the Fātiḥa is not a pillar of prayer, and purity is not a condition of ṭawāf. Exile is not part of the ḥadd. The slave freed in the expiations for an oath and for ẓihār (a husband likening his wife to his mother) need not be a believer.
• Who disagrees: al-Shāfiʿī treats such an addition like narrowing a general word, so he allows it by single report or qiyās. Sarakhsī answers that narrowing takes something out, while a qualification adds something, and an unqualified and a qualified text would clash if their dates were unknown.
• Deeper: v1 B11.08

Back to the list

Previous · All chapters · Next