If anyone may be unfamiliar with the term: “Naskh” or نسخ is an Arabic term that is translated as “abrogation”. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, abrogate means to end a law, agreement, or custom formally. It is used in Islamic legal exegesis to address seemingly contradictory information in the Qur’an (Wikipedia).

Background:

A while back, I was reading an article about Meccan and Medinah verses and their differences and the author was talking about how since the Medinah verses are more violent and this seems to contradict the relative peacefulness of earlier Mecca verses, that the violent verses abrogate the peaceful ones. I thought to myself, “No, because the Qur’an should be addressed and understood as a whole.” I actually moved on and forgot the term “abrogation” completely. Only, a few days later, the meaning behind the implications of the term in the article kept coming back to mind. I rediscovered the term and did some readings, and one from the Middle Eastern Forum caught my attention:

“Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam” by David Bukay

Here are some quotes from this article:

“Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur'an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be ‘deficient’.”

“Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself.”

“Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.”

“David Powers, a well-known researcher of classical Islam, agreed that 9:5 abrogates no less than 124 verses that command or imply anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers. However, he says the verse is itself considered to be abrogated by the conditional clause with which it concludes: "But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way."[64] But such a condition is not magnanimous: When infidels repent and perform the Muslim prayer and pay alms, it means they have become Muslims. Once they are Muslims, there is no need to slay them. The clause thus becomes more coercive than conditional. It suggests than a non-Muslim must convert to Islam or be slain.”

“The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslims.”

*The nature of Middle East Forum can be somewhat Islamophobic and rather biased and portrays a decent bit of negativity towards Islam, but I still found the article well-written whether or not I agreed with its content.

Now, my questions!

1. What is your knowledge/awareness of abrogation?

2. What are the extent and limits of abrogation in the Qur’an as you understand them? Is it really important?

3. Do you agree or disagree with arguments the article has provided?

4. How should one approach matters of abrogation when studying the Qur’an, especially from someone who might be unfamiliar with it?

5. Any other thoughts and comments you personally might had had when dealing with this theory?

List of articles I had read on the matter that have varying viewpoints:

https://www.meforum.org/articles/2007/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

https://www.al-islam.org/180-questions-about-islam-vol-2-various-issues-makarim-shirazi/36-naskh-abrogation-permitted

http://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/is-it-the-duty-of-muslims-to-fight-non-muslims-until-they-accept-islam/