Regarding the Verse on the Abrogation of Revelations: Is It a Fact and Logical?
The verse about the abrogation of revelations is commonly associated with Qur’an 2:106:
> مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا
"Ma nansakh min āyatin aw nunsiha na'ti bikhayrin minha aw mithliha."
"We do not abrogate a sign or cause it to be forgotten, but We bring a better one or a similar one."
How is this traditionally interpreted?
Islamic scholars use this verse to justify the concept of naskh (abrogation), claiming that Allah has repealed some laws from previous revelations and replaced them with new ones.
Some scholars go even further, arguing that even Qur’anic verses abrogate each other, which is problematic because it would imply that the Qur’an is inconsistent.
But what does the text actually say?
1. The word "āyah" (آيَةٍ) means "sign," not necessarily "Qur’anic verse."
In the Qur’an, a sentence or ruling is not called "āyah"; rather, āyah refers to divine signs.
This verse may actually mean that God replaces signs (miracles, revelations, nations), rather than Qur’anic verses.
2. The concept of "nunsiha" (نُنسِهَا) – "We cause it to be forgotten."
This could mean that certain nations forget previous revelations, but it does not necessarily mean that God revokes them.
3. "We bring a better or similar sign" – but what is a better sign?
If this refers to divine miracles, then the message is that God can change the way He manifests among different nations.
If it refers to religious laws, then a contradiction arises: How can something be "better" if it was originally from God?
Another Verse About the Abrogation of Revelations?
Another verse often linked to the idea of abrogation is Qur’an 16:101:
> وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍۢ وَٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍۢ
"Wa idhā baddalnā āyatan makāna āyatin, wallāhu aʿlamu bimā yunazzil, qālū innamā anta muftarin."
"And when We substitute one sign for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, ‘You are but a forger!’"
What does this verse mean?
1. Again, the word "āyah" is used, which primarily means "sign," not necessarily a legal ruling.
This could refer to the changing of divine signs in nature, among nations, or in the course of revelation throughout history.
The critics of Muhammad here accuse him of forging revelations because they notice that "signs" are changing.
2. There is no mention of "abrogation" (naskh), but rather "substitution" (baddala).
If this is about laws, then it suggests an evolution of revelation, not a cancellation.
Logical Conclusion: Would Ellah Revoke His Own Laws?
If Allah revoked something He previously established, this would imply that He did not know it was imperfect from the start.
In the Tanakh, laws are not revoked but expanded and built upon:
- Noah receives fundamental laws about life and the prohibition of consuming blood.
- Abraham does not cancel Noah’s laws but builds upon them.
- Abraham receives additional covenants and festivals.
- Moses does not erase Abraham’s laws but adds more rules and regulations.
If we return to Qur’an 2:106 and 16:101, we see that these verses speak about the evolution of divine signs and the development of laws, not about their cancellation or contradiction.
Conclusion:
If Ellah revoked His own laws, it would mean they were imperfect.
What we see in the Tanakh is a logical development – an expansion, not an erasure.
The verses about "abrogation" do not directly mention changes in legislation but rather divine signs or the progression of revelation.
The later concept of naskh was a human invention to justify contradictions in the Qur’an.
Thus, if someone claims that Ellah revokes and changes His laws, this idea comes from later interpretations, not from the original Qur’anic text or previous scriptures.
There is no clear evidence that these verses refer to the abrogation of Qur’anic laws.
The more logical meaning is that God changes signs and miracles among nations, not religious laws.
The concept of naskh (abrogation) was later developed to resolve contradictions in the Qur’an, but the original text does not directly support it.
Therefore, these verses do not necessarily speak about abolishing or changing divine laws, but rather about the transformation of signs and the way God guides people throughout history.
