Abstract
Among the sciences fundamental to
Qur'anic exegesis ('Ulūm al-Qur'ān) is al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh (abrogation), a
discipline addressing instances where certain Qur'anic rulings supersede others
revealed earlier, in response to evolving circumstances of the early Muslim
community. Classical exegetes such as al-Suyūṭī, Ibn al-Jawzī, and al-Zarkashī regarded
mastery of this science as indispensable for any mufassir, since confusing
abrogated (mansūkh) verses with abrogating (nāsikh) ones risks serious
misapplication of Islamic law (Sharī’ah). Despite its centrality, the science
of Naskh remains one of the most contested areas of Qur'anic scholarship.
Scholars disagree sharply on the number of genuinely abrogated verses estimates
range from as few as five to over five hundred reflecting inconsistent
methodological criteria and, in some cases, conflation of abrogation with
specification (takhṣīṣ), exception (istithnā'), or clarification (bayān). This
definitional confusion has practical consequences for legal derivation (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām)
and for how the Qur'an's internal coherence is understood. This study aims to
(i) examine the conceptual and terminological foundations of Naskh in classical
'Ulūm al-Qur'ān literature; (ii) analyze the conditions (shurūṭ)
jurists established for authenticating a claim of abrogation; (iii) critically
assess representative cases of alleged abrogation across the major exegetical
and uṣūl
al-fiqh traditions; and (iv) evaluate the continuing relevance of this science
to contemporary Qur'anic interpretation. The study adopts a qualitative,
analytical-descriptive approach grounded in classical Islamic scholarship.
Primary sources include the Qur'an, canonical hadith collections, and
foundational works on Naskh (e.g., al-Suyūṭī's al-Itqān, Ibn Salāmah's al-Nāsikh wa
al-Mansūkh, and relevant uṣūl al-fiqh texts), supplemented by contemporary scholarly
analyses. The research finds that rigorous application of the jurists'
conditions for abrogation particularly the requirement of an established
chronological sequence and genuine textual incompatibility substantially
narrows the range of authentically abrogated verses compared to earlier
expansive claims, and that many purported cases are more accurately classified
under takhṣīṣ or
contextual clarification rather than Naskh proper. A disciplined understanding
of al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh is essential to sound Qur'anic exegesis and legal
reasoning, safeguarding against both the unwarranted nullification of divine
rulings and the erroneous harmonization of texts that are, in fact, genuinely
abrogated.
DOI: https://www.doi.10.57233/djfafais.2026.v22i01.015
author/Yusuf, T. S. and Altine, Z.
journal/Degel 22(1) | October 2026 |
