By - A. Muhammad

This article continues from The biggest lie against the Quran - Part 1. Click the link to read the first part.

Abrogation claims of Muslim Scholars - Part 2

Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the ‘hadith’. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many ‘hadith’ contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:

P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.

1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).

2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).

3- The prophet said, "The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet’s son) died"… (Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
The prophet said, "the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one" (Bukhari 2/page 24)

4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten were those who fought and killed one another in battle, specifically Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!

5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the ‘Hereafter’ in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet’s wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)

6- The prophet said, "Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet’s wife)"
This contradicts: The prophet said, "Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)

The heart of the matter is directly connected to the following verse:

"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82


This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy is God’s own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82 nothing that contains contradictions can be from God.

To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.

The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God.

Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail:

The Quran contains no Contradictions

To follow, is a review of some of the better known cases of abrogation and, God willing, a verification of the fact that all these claims are based upon poor understanding of the Quran. Each case presented will be accompanied by Quranic evidence that confirms the absence of any contradiction between the relevant verses, and as a result will expose the interpreter’s poor understanding of the Quran.

Claims of Abrogation

Case one:

The first case is concerned with the following verses:

The claim is that these two verses contradict one another, the first verse states that God holds people accountable to their intentions while as the second verse indicates that we are only accountable to our deeds. Faced with this apparent contradiction, the scholars resolved by declaring that verse 286 invalidates and cancels out verse 284. In other words, what we do not understand, or what gives us problems in interpreting, we simply obliterate.

Although, and on first impression, it indeed looks like there is a good case for abrogation here, yet, we only have to read the verse immediately before verse 284 to realise that there is no contradiction between 284 and 286:

The last words of verse 283 together with verse 284 read as follows:

"Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. God is fully aware of everything you do. To God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, Whether you declare your inner thoughts or conceal them, God holds you accountable for them."

By reading the two verses together it becomes apparent that the subject of verse 284 is testimony and not one’s intentions in general.

Verse 284 confirms that God holds those who conceal a testimony accountable. Furthermore, the words used in verse 284 are ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ while as the words used in verse 286 are ‘earn’ and ‘commit’. The words ‘declare’ and ‘conceal’ are consistent with the subject of testimony. Testimony can indeed be declared or concealed. On the other hand, the words ‘earn’ and ‘commit’ which are used in verse 286 speak of our deeds.

Indeed verses 283 and 284 are related to the same subject (withholding testimony) since they are consecutive. For all that, it becomes clear that there is not the slightest contradiction between verses 284 and 286.

According to 284, we learn that God holds people accountable for concealing a testimony. The verse does not speak of intentions. On the other hand, verse 286 speaks about a completely different issue, that being ones deeds. The assumed contradiction is false.

Case two:

Here, the claim is that while verse 2:62 says that some Jews and Christians will be rewarded, this was abrogated by 3:85 which states that all who are not Muslim will end up in hell.

Once again, the misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from the inability to comprehend the simple meaning of the word Islam (Submission to God). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion Muhammad and the religion of the Quran !!!

By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim.

What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone , Lord of the universe.

In effect the religion of Islam which was originally founded by Abraham can be found, not only in the Quran, but also in the Torah and the Bible. After all we are told that all the foundations of the religion, and which Muslims call the pillars of Islam were first given to Abraham.

The Quran confirms the true meaning of a Muslim, as being he who submits to God Alone and obeys the law of God Alone, and should not be confined to he who follows the Quran.

Those among the Christians who believe in the Oneness of God and who do not worship Jesus are Muslim in the sight of God. Similarly those among any other religion who submit to God Alone and who set up no idols to partner Almighty God are Muslim in the sight of God.

All these have their recompense from their Lord and have nothing to fear (2:62). These people are also the subject of 3:85 since they chose to be Muslim (submitters) to God. They could be Muslim submitters, Jewish submitters, Christian submitters …..etc.

Consequently, there is no contradiction between 2:62 and 3:85

Case Three:

Some of the most ridiculous cases of abrogation are connected with the inability of these scholars to understand that some laws set by God make allowance for exceptions. Whenever the scholars see a law that makes allowance for an exception, they construe it as a case of abrogation!

There are many cases throughout the Quran of this poor deduction and total irrationality, the following are some examples:

1- In 4:19 God address’s the men by saying:

"You shall not force them (the women) to give up anything you have given them, unless they commit a proven adultery"

Here the abrogation claim is that the first part of the verse "You shall not force them (women) to give up anything you have given them" has been abrogated by the second part of the verse "unless they commit a proven adultery"!

Why does a single exception to a rule become an allowance by God to obliterate the rule? Obviously the rule still stands, because God states that for all women who have not committed adultery, their husbands do not have the right to regain anything they had previously given them.

The first part of the verse, which constitutes the general case has not been abrogated. The second part of the verse which constitutes the exception also stands.

2- In 2:159 we read:

"Those who conceal Our revelations and guidance, after proclaiming them in the Scripture, are condemned by God; they are condemned by all the condemners"

They claim that this verse (159) has been abrogated by the verse that immediately followed it (160) which reads:

"Except those who repent, reform and proclaim, I redeem them. I am the Redeemer, the Most Merciful"

Again we see that verse 160 says that those who had concealed the revelation but then repented and reformed are redeemed by God. Verse 159 has not been abrogated. It still stands, since all those who concealed the revelations and have not repented and reformed are not redeemed.

3- In 3:86-88 we read:

"Why should God guide those who disbelieved after believing…the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved"

The claim here is that these verses have been abrogated by verse 89:

"Exempted are those who repent thereafter and reform, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Once again the claimed abrogation is non existent. Both verses stand true.

Verses 86-88 are speaking about those who disbelieve after believing and maintain their disbelieving until death. They are never reprieved in the hereafter. Verse 89 speaks about those who repent and reform during their life. Because God is Forgiver and Most Merciful they are reprieved.

The Quran confirms that only those who die as disbelievers are not pardoned:

"Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers." 3:91

Once again the claim of abrogation is false and is based on poor understanding of the Quran.

4- Another case of poor understanding is found in the following verses:

"Also you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time"4:23

they claim that this has been abrogated by the words that immediately followed :

"except that which has taken place in the past"

and they interpret the last sentence, which in Arabic is (Ila ma salaf) to have the meaning of (I have forgiven you).

Obviously this is all incorrect. What this last verse means is ‘do not break up existing marriages’. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.

In other words God is saying that this law is to be enforced from that time onwards, but not to previous marriages so as not to break existing families.

Again the abrogation is non existent.
The same is applies to :

"Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers, except that which has taken place in the past…"4:22

Case four:

Here they claim the underlined words in the following verse:

"To God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you go you will always be facing God. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient" 2:115

have been abrogated by the underlined words in the following verse:

"We now assign a Qiblah that is pleasing to you. Henceforth, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. Wherever you may, all of you shall turn your faces towards it."2:144

The claim is that in the beginning God made it lawful for the believers to face anywhere in Salat (Contact Prayers) (as in 2:115) then later God cancelled that by appointing a set Qibla (2:144) for the believers. Therefore, the claim is that 2:144 invalidates 2:115

First of all, it was never made lawful for believers to face anywhere in their Salat. This claim has no Quranic evidence whatsoever. We are told in the Quran that the Qibla was changed, but nowhere are we told that there was no Qibla.

We are told in the Quran that there was a Qibla that did not appeal to the prophet, and that God changed it to one that is more appealing to the prophet (see 2:144)

The obvious misunderstanding here is that while verse 144 is speaking about Qiblah for the Salat (Prayer), verse 115 is not speaking about Salat at all. Verse 115 is speaking about the fact that God is present everywhere, and thus wherever we may look or wherever we may go, we will always be facing God. The presence of the word "Omnipresent" at the end of the verse confirms that the subject of the verse is God’s Presence and not the Salat.

Verse 144 does not abrogate verse 115. They are talking about two completely different subjects.

Case Five:

The claim is that the underlined words in 9:80 "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them" invalidate the underlined words in 4:64 "the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".

Once again, a case of poor understanding of the Quran.

Here we immediately note that these two verses speak about two different groups of people. In 4:64 God is speaking about those who have wronged their souls but have turned back to God and asked for His forgiveness. The fact that they asked forgiveness from God denotes that they believe in God, and for that we are told that "they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful.".

On the other hand, those spoken of in 9:80 are described by the words: "they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger"…and because they are disbelievers, we are told that "GOD will not forgive them".

From these two verses we learn that forgiveness can be asked for any believer who repents and reforms, but may never be asked for disbelievers.

No contradiction or invalidation exists between the two verses.

Case six:

The claim is that in 5:106 any two witnesses, who are not necessarily relatives or close friends, can act as witnesses while in travel if relatives are not available, but this was invalidated by 65:2 which stated that the witnesses must be from among the relatives or close friends.

Once again, the claim is false for the following reasons:

1- The subject of 5:106 is witnessing the will of someone who is dying, or near death. The subject of 65:2 is witnessing a divorce.

2- In the situation of travel, a dying person may not have much time left, and since equitable relatives may not be available in time, thus God wavered the condition of the witnesses being from among the relatives, so that the will is witnessed in time before the death of the person.

3- The case of divorce does not present such immediate urgency, and thus the condition of equitable witnesses from among the relatives stands.

4- Thus it is obvious that 65:2 does not abrogate 5:106 in any way.

Case seven:

Here the claim is that the underlined words in 6:15 were abrogated later by the underlined words in 48:2

The indirect outcome of this outrageous abrogation is one of total idol worship.

If the scholars state that the words "I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day" are invalidated, are they saying that the prophet no longer has to fear God?

To demonstrate the truth of these verses and their implications it is necessary first to examine in the light of the Quran what is forgiven by God, and which can be implied under 48:2, and what is never forgiven by God and thus must be feared according to 6:15.

We are told in the Quran that God forgives all sins except idol worship (setting partners to God):

"God does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills." 4:48 and 4:116

We are also told that this warning applies to all people, including God’s messengers. To affirm that even Muhammad was not excluded from this warning, we see God specifically warning Muhammad against idolatry:

"It has been revealed to you (O Muhammad), and to those before you that if you ever commit idolatry, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers." 39:65

Now when we come to the claimed abrogation of 6:15, we read the following words:

"Say, ‘I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."

However, when we read the words that immediately precede this verse, we read:

"Say, "I am commanded to be the most devoted submitter, and, `Do not be an idol worshiper." 6:14

If we put the two verses next to one another (verses 14 and 15 of Surah 6), it becomes obvious that the messenger is to say (If I should ever disobey God and commit idol worship, then I would fear the retribution of an awesome day).

It follows from that to conclude that verse 48:2 which promises the messenger’s sins will be forgiven (past and future sins) is obviously connected to all sins, except if he was ever to commit idol worship.

There is no contradiction or abrogation between the two verses.

Case eight:

The claim here is that in 9:43 the prophet was not allowed to give permission to the ones wanting to stay behind, before he could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars, while in 24:62 he was not given the permission to do so.

Once again, the error is quite obvious. Verse 9:43 is specifically speaking of the urgent case of going out for battle, whileas 24:62 speaks of the more relaxed situation of someone leaving a community meeting to attend to some personal matters!

We read in the two verses preceding 9:43, namely 9:41 and 42:

"You shall readily mobilize, light or heavy, and strive with your money and your lives in the cause of GOD. This is better for you, if you only knew.
If there were a quick material gain, and a short journey, they would have followed you. But the striving is just too much for them. They will swear by GOD: "If we could, we would have mobilized with you." They thus hurt themselves, and GOD knows that they are liars."

The underlined words "mobilize" and if it were a "short journey" indicate that the subject is mobilizing to go out for the purpose of battle.

However, the words "community meeting" in 24:62, denotes that the situation there is not one of battle but a normal community meeting where a request for permission to be excused for some personal matters would not exactly be classified as an unforgivable sin!

Once again 24:62 does not contradict or abrogate 9:43, the subject of the two verse is different.