Have you ever wondered what Muslims do when different
verses in the Quran seem to contradict one another?
And what happens when some teachings appear to
change over time? Abrogation in Islam is the
idea that certain revelations to Muhammad cancel
or override earlier ones. In cases of contradiction,
the later revelation is treated as abrogating
the earlier one. This doctrine is usually based
on a verse in Surah 2, verse 106. which says
that when Allah causes a revelation to be abrogated
or forgotten, He brings another one like it or
better than it. But what does that actually mean
in practice? If this verse is talking about replacing
forgotten or lost verses with better ones, then
it cannot logically be used to cancel verses
that are still known and still present in the
Quran. Yet in Islamic tradition, that is exactly
what often happens. Verses that everyone can
still read are declared abrogated. and no longer
binding even though they have not been forgotten
or removed. To make sense of this, Muslims have
generally described four types of abrogation.
First, there are cases where the abrogating verse
is in the Qur 'an and the abrogated verse is
also still in the Qur 'an. Second, there are
cases where both verses are in the text, but
the earlier one is considered cancelled in practice.
Third, there are cases where the abrogated verse
is no longer in the Qur 'an at all. Fourth, there
are cases where the abrogating verse itself is
not in the Qur 'an. That last category is especially
troubling. If a verse was supposedly revealed
to replace another but is now lost, then it directly
clashes with the idea in Surah 2 verse 106 that
a better or similar verse will be brought in
its place. How can that promise be fulfilled
if the replacement verse itself no longer exists?
What about verses that were not lost but still
declared cancelled? Consider a famous example.
In Surah 2, verse 256, we read that there is
no compulsion in religion and that the right
path is clear from error. This sounds like a
principle of religious freedom, but later in
the Quran we find verses commanding fighting
until certain conditions in society are changed
and until Islam prevails. Many Muslim scholars
have taught that these later fighting verses
override the earlier call to no compulsion in
religion. The earlier verse remains in the text
but is treated as no longer binding. How did
this shift happen? Some Muslim scholars describe
a historical progression in Muhammad's teaching
on fighting. At first fighting was forbidden.
Then it was allowed in self -defense. Later it
was commanded more broadly against those who
opposed Islam or associated partners with Allah.
The more militant Medinan verses are then said
to abrogate many of the more tolerant Meccan
verses. We even see abrogation inside the Qur
'an interpreted through hadith. For example,
there is a report where a companion asked about
the forgiveness of someone who intentionally
kills a believer. He quoted a Meccan verse from
Surah al -Furqan that offered hope of repentance
and forgiveness. Another companion replied that
this verse had been abrogated by a later Medinan
verse that threatened hellfire for those who
intentionally kill a believer. Both verses are
still in the Quran, but one is treated as cancelled.
Oddly, many abrogated passages remain part of
the Quranic text, even though they are said to
have no legal force for Muslims today. Some writers
have counted over 100 verses that call for patience,
tolerance, or peaceful coexistence, which they
claim have been cancelled and replaced by later
commands to fight, and slay polytheists wherever
they are found. According to this view, one single
fighting verse can override a very large number
of verses about patience and restraint. There
is also a striking example showing how a revelation
could be revised almost immediately. One report
describes how a verse was revealed that praised
those who fight in the cause of Allah above those
who stay at home. When this was written down,
a blind man who could not fight asked the Prophet
what applied to him. Then a slightly revised
verse was revealed, adding an exception for those
who are disabled, such as the blind or lame.
The earlier wording and the revised wording are
both preserved in the tradition. Does this not
raise an important question? If verses can be
revised on the spot, and if peaceful verses can
later be treated as cancelled by more militant
ones, how can anyone simply say that the Qur
'an is one timeless, unchanged message? without
tension or development. And if some abrogating
verses and some abrogated verses are said to
be lost entirely, how does that fit with the
claim that the revelation has been perfectly
preserved? These are not minor details but central
issues. Anyone who wants to understand the Qur
'an deeply has to wrestle with how abrogation
works, what it changes, and what it implies about
the stability and clarity of the text Muslims
follow today.