(Coming soon)

What does Naskh mean (Abrogation)?

Naskh linguistically it means removal izala. The sun has nazakhat the shade (removed it) by extending its light over it so in other words the sun abrogates darkness it can also mean to move or to lift. Nakhl Its also said the meaning can mean to move or to transport displace and there is Nazal disagreement and doubts on if this meaning is correct Imam Hattab says the 2^nd meaning for naskh (moving or copying) is not correct as when you have an abrogating verse It is not a copy of what was before or it would be the same thing it is also not moving, to remove is a more reasonable definition of things. Some have said to change is a 3^rd meaning to the word naskh for example the winds have changed (abrogated) the ruins of a house. You can imagine a worn-down building by the wind. Imam Hattab intends to mean that the definition of removal is the most encompassing of all the definitions. The usage of these 2 meanings before (which has disagreements on it) some same it’s a meaning of removal is literal and its meaning of copying is figurative while others say it’s the opposite where the removal is figurative and copying is literal but Imam Hattab says this is farfetched.

What does Hadd mean?

The root of Hadd means a limit, in example a border between countries but it can also mean a definition because it limits the categorization of a thing.  Hadd does refer to the hudud punishment but it is not the root. Imam juwaynis says it’s hadd is its limited and adds its terminological shari’I meaning and says the hadd (limit of the meaning) of naskh “an address to Muslims which indicates towards the lifting of an established ruling with a new address which deals with the same issue.” Imam hattab adds onto this and says nasikh which abrogates the naskh the concept in general. What it means to lifting the ruling it means when the nasikh thing like a verse it lifts a ruling it means lifting it off of the muqalif (legally accountable adult male and female). The lifting of the obligation to do something due to insanity is different from the lifting mentioned before. The 2^nd nasikh verse has to clearly relate to what the first thing it is abrogating relates to and clearly overwriting (Surah taubah would). Surah to jummah verse 9 is an example “oh you who believe when Friday prayer is called leave aside business” clearly the prohibition of doing business is tied to jummah and the next verse “when the prayer is finish disperse in the lands and seek the bounties of Allah” the 2^nd verse is dealing with the same thing it showing you the extent of the prohibition when does it end (its duration). A person could say this only applies to one Friday once Friday is reached there is no more business again but the next verse prevents this and says once the prayer is over you can work. Another example given is surah Maida 96 “hunting has been prohibited for you as long as you are in the state of ihram” is it not said this is not an abrogator for the words of Allah “when you have completed the rights then you can hunt” This likewise to the other example it gives the extent of the prohibition. You can have specification to a verse which is more like updates to give additional understanding not an outright abrogation as the prayers are repeating its limit and eluviation of the limit is repetition as well as the state of ihram and hunting.

Different types of Naskh

1. Quran abrogating Quran
2. Quran abrogating sunnah
3. Sunnah abrogating sunnah

Its possible for a specific wording to be abrogated while the meaning can remail for example it was revealed to the prophet that even an old man and old woman are committing adultery they should be stoned to death which is not in the Quran but the meaning is still accurate. This is called Ayatul rajm and it is not in the Quran, Umar referenced it as being valid (in meaning) it narrated by Imam Malik in the muwatta this is for those who are not virgins. If two young virgins do it, they can get punished by not by death but If they are married or divorced then the punishment is death. The meaning of Tayib someone who has married before used by Imam Malik means the opposite of biqr which is virgin. This shows the text of the verse of stoning is abrogated but its meaning is enforced likewise you can have the abrogation of the ruling and the remaining in the text this means the ruling can be abrogated but it’s kept within the text! Surah baqara 2:40 “those of you who die leaving spouses (widows) leave them a years’ worth of maintenance” which is referring to Iddah this was abrogated by what was directly before it” 2:34 “They are to remain by themselves 4 months and 10 days” this refers to the Iddah period so from a year of iddah to 4 months and 10 days. Imam hattab says there are many examples like this. You can also have a text and its meaning and text abrogated. The text meaning ruling abrogated there were previously 10 things would invalidate a marriage then there were 5 things which would invalidate a marriage.

Recap of the types of naskh

He gave us 3 types of naskh the text but the ruling not being abrogated like ayatul rajm, the 2^nd type the ruling gets abrogated but the text remains (we still recite it) but its meaning is abrogated by another verse and the 3^rd which you can have both the text and its ruling its abrogated. If neither the text or the ruling is not abrogated then it’s not considered abrogation at all since nothing was abrogated at all

Abrogation of replacement

The facing of bayt al maqdus and facing of the Kaaba. The Muslims originally prayed to Jerusalem as the first Qibla then afterwards it become the Kaaba. That is an example of an example of an abrogation of an early reality that Allah ordained to be replaced. Other than replacement surah mujadila verse 12 “when you consult the messenger in private give something in charity before your consultation” This is adding something new this in itself is not a replacement. When you ask the prophet, it recommends to give in charity and not abrogating in totality so in a sense Naskh could be bringing something new into a previous reality. Naskh can be for something أغلظ which means stricter (there are many words but this is what the text uses). In example is fasting, fasting originally was a choice then it became stricter, and the rules regarding missed fast become stricter. Also, the abrogation to what is lighter surah anfal verse 65. Allah says 20 can overcome 100 and, this in itself is a piece of wisdom on how things work in the first example its 20-200 the next is 2 to 1 which is less impressive than 1 to 100 but its an indication that Allah is not expecting the same fortitude as those address by 1 to 100.

Nasakh the abrogator

Imam Juwaynis says regarding this “it is permissible for the book to be abrogated by the book” which means the Quran to be abrogated by Quran you may a verse in the early portion of Islam which is abrogated by a later revealed verse in example the Iddah or patience (I am not sure what this is referring too the commentary does not define it) or you can have the Sunnah abrogated by the book which means the prophet has a certain practice done in a certain way and Allah corrects or changes that by means of revelation and the prophet would change his behavior based upon that which was revelation unto him. Surah baqara 124 the Qiba is a great example facing the QIba is from the Sunnah but it was changed by the revelation of the Aya 2:124! You can have the sunnah abrogated by the sunnah in which a new thing of from the sunnah took precedence over what was before there is a Hadith found in Muslim (Sahih Muslim) “I previously prohibited you from visiting graves but now visit them” for those who completely prohibit the grave this example is a rebuttal as the prophet did visit the grave and the sunnah itself abrogated the previous prohibition although there are some to be on the safe side prefer to keep away from the graves. The sunnah abrogates the sunnah except in which there is a muwatir part of the sunnah but an Ahad (not widely reported) thing which means a singular narration which is the opposite of mutawatir (widely reported) upon this there is khilaf Imam hattab has the view the abrogation of an ahad hadith by a mutawatir hadith is permitted!

The Sunnah abrogating the book (Quran)

(some say There is no naskh which abrogates the book by the sunnah) Imam hattab says Imam juwayni is silent upon the rules of the Sunnah abrogated the book but his view is that the Sunnah can abrogate the book.(but it must be mutawatir)  Whether the sunnah can abrogate the Quran there is disagree upon this Imam hattab is quoting from jami jawamia which is a large shafi usal al fiqh which is authoritative  but in this book it says “You can abrogate the Quran with the sunnah” That is regardless whether the sunnah is mutawatir or Ahad however Jami jwawami “it is never the case that the Quran is abrogated by anything except the mutawair” so theoretically if you accept the sunnah can abrogate Quran it would not be for any instance of sunnah it is only fort the wide reported Sunnah that has this privilege! In the commentator of jami jawamiya said “some have argued that there are examples in which an ahad hadith abrogates Quran the hadith in which the prophet said “There is nor bereavement for one to inherited directly” a wasiya is akin to a will as opposed to an inheritor inheriting what is left by default, a wasiya has control over what happens to the money. The prophet is saying you keep the inheritors out of the will and what the commentator is saying that hadith abrogates the verse of Quran surah baqara 180 “it is written upon you if one of you is approaching death to leave something of value a will should be made for ones parents and close ones to you (immediate relatives)” this includes the parents brother sister spouse etc this is their right and cannot be stopped form getting that so the ahad hadith is at odds with the verse, the contention is that this hadith is ahad that abrogated a verse but Imam Hattab says we do not accept a like of wide reporting of this hadith Imam hattab also adds this is what good mujtahids add as well.

Recap

Some say hadith doesn’t abrogate hadith others say it can but doesn’t happen (no examples) other says it can and it did because the hadith is mutawatir anyways. (Muhalis commentary on jami jawamia reference of the commentary of the shafi’I usul al fiqh book)

Some manuscripts of the Waraqat do not include this

In some manuscripts of the waraqat it is written the sunnah cannot abrogate the book what is meant by this is that it is not meaning absolutely prohibited. Books would change over time by scribes also other books were written by students by listening to the Imam and each student would have a study note and one student may have written a slightly changed passage given to his students this explains why there are some variants but Imam Hattab say what it means is that the non mutawatir sunnah cannot abrogate the book not that no hadith can abrogate the book. The book can be specified by the sunnah, the Quran is not thrown out but it is providing details upon what the Quran means or adding additional context upon an issue! You can have a nask of mutawatir sunnah from the book or the sunnah by mutawatir. A hadith can be abrogated by another ahad hadith or mutawatir but you cannot have mutawtir hadith be abrogated by an ahad hadith. This is a question for ilm al hadith which we know they prefer to have the most authentic collections of mutawatir hadith, the Mutawatir hadith is more often relied upon! Why not? The Ahad is lesser than Mutawatir in strength!

As for the validity for historical sources outside of Islam

Historians they took care for sources in the field of history oral sources which is what a lot of pre literate society are quite accurate and consistent, they are not thrown out just because it is not written down and as for written sources, they are not any less valid than any written sources. As for mutawatir it makes sense as we know Genghis khan exist due to him being mutawtir reported in history. There are some atheists who say that Jesus never existed but we disagree as there are references that Jesus did exist. Hadith is a specialize discipline in history in which we study the subsequent generation with special love to one generation of history.

The hadith sciences are rigorous

The Hadith sciences are quite rigorous it is the best you could possibly do with the condition that the people were in, in the time of the prophet everyone had access to the prophet after he dies, he becomes a part of history as most people are not literate if you live 1 or 2 generation after the prophet? In a literate society you would get oral reports, you can distort facts spoken or written in a society like that you would need to have a form of rigorous science such as who is a legitimate source for hadith in the example of mutawatir who all report the same event from different lines of transmission is quite strong and the strongest you can get in a prefilmed society. In a book like bukhari or Muslim they are quite large you must imagine how many hadith were almost included but were rejected probably outnumber that what was included. There are many scholars who defend the Sunni hadith tradition over the Shiite tradition or the western orientalist. Professor Jonathon brown wrote a book upon sahih bukhari upon how it become canon in sunni tradition, he is controversial but his book is high quality and it is endorsed by sunni ulema which deals with this topic.

Modern historical events can be distorted

Within our own lifetime the major events can be distorted and even more so if you add 1000 years’ time of history which transpire but with the hadith sciences it is an attempt to get the most reliable information upon events that occurred over 1000 years ago, digging and radio carbon dating would not revealed intimate details about the prophets life the only people who have that information directly are the companions and the only way for us to get the information is the oral narration chains which was passed on to us.

The hadith traditions of the Shiites Ibadis and Christians

The shia have their own collection of hadith which many of them are the same as the hadith found in the sunni hadith traditions as well as the Ibadis. The bible itself is a halfway point between the concept of Quran and Hadith, the 4 gospels are the 4 narrations about Jesus and his disciples in which the Christian creed is based on which say these narrated stories are guided by the holy spirit which is a bit more super natural to how Muslims would view the hadith. The Christians do not have a concept of the Quran meaning the exact words of God the closest is their translation of the Torah which is attributed to Allah but perhaps not in its exact word form of Allah meaning what the Muslims have is incredibly unique the 2 of the gospels are inspired by 1 singular anonymous author as well as many other gospels that did not become cannon as well as the gnostic gospels such as the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of barnabous. Etc so with that being said I won’t go any further into this point but I would say the Muslim sources are far stronger

Conflicting evidences

When you see two sources that contradict, they are apparent contradictions that can be harmonized and that is what this chapter of Qurrat al ayn seeks to do in the words of Imam juwayni and Imam Hattab. What is done with contradiction between evidences? Tarud means contraction which is part of the title “dar Tarud aqal wal nakal” by ibn taymiyyah which he explains aql and nakl do not have to be in conflict you can reason and accept revelation freely! Imam Hattab says “Contradiction is when 2 things appear to be at odds”.

The authors still define words despite being native speakers

It is interesting that these books are written in Arabic language or Arabic speakers they still define the words as that is needed to have a accurate discussion upon the topic that we all define the word correctly.

If 2 Naskhs contradict what to do?

2 naskhs, words of Allah or Words Allah, this can be 2 verses or 2 hadith. What are the possibles when you have 2 things which are contradicting? Imam Hattab says “they can both be general or both specific or one general and one specific.” They can be general in one respect and specific in another respect. If these 2 contradictory things are general then it is possible to combine together and that is by applying both of them, 2 things to 2 specific situations but it would not be possible to confine them if the extent of what they convert are they same. In example if you had a statement all men must do X and another statement that says no men should not do X, this is a contradiction that you cannot get out of if you take it as any adult male! But if the context suggest it did not intend to be all men on the whole world, then it can be harmonized. The idea of combining them is figurative but rather putting each of them in their own spot. In another example a Hadith found in Muslim “shall I not inform you of the best of witnesses, it is he who comes for testimony while not being asked for it” Another hadith that is found in both of the 2 Sahih books “the best of you is my generation and those who come after them and those after them and then they will be a nation who will give testimony without being asked to do so.” The contradiction are the best witnesses are those who being themselves for testimony while not being asked which contradicts the 2^nd statement which would insulate, they are better than the latter. The first hadith is for someone who doesn’t know their testimony applies to a case and the 2^nd hadith is for those who know. The first case applies to where the right of Allah has to be fulfilled such as divorce etc for the 2^nd case for other legal actions other than it.  The fuquha drew out additional info from these hadith then applied them to slightly different used cases.

What if they cant be harmonized?

If you can’t harmonize between 2 naskh then you withhold from action (acting on either of them) if the history is unknown (the order in which the events took place or the additional context) that would prevent you from knowing how to implement them. Surah nisa verse 3, surah nisa verse 23 are another example. What your right hand possesses and the 2^nd ayat mentions “you should not combine between sisters”. The first case refers to marriage as it seems it allows 2 sisters but the 2^nd verse would specify and prevent that. Uthman would not give a ruling on is you can have 2 slave women who are sisters as yours. Imam hattab says the fuqaha (jurist) ruled that this is not permissible based upon additional proof.

The Sahaba withheld their views on things

Cases where the sahaba consciously withheld their opinion upon things and later jurist clarified what the Sahabah had mentioned before. Imam Hattab did not mention who gave the clarification of the scholars who did know the ruling. This is an interesting point as if you limit your practice of Islam to only the Sahaba without looking into those who learned from the Sahaba you could have views which vary from normative practice of the 4 agreed upon madhabs as there was an increase of established Ahkam by the students of the Sahabah and their students and their students. From this you can see there are many differing views from those who are strictly Salafi and those who are Athari in Aqeedah but follow an established school of fiqh had you only followed Uthman you would not know what to do in the situation of one man eloping with 2 sisters in union.

In example the Iddah or the death of a Husband

If you know the context of 2 verses or narrations then the later one abrogates the formal one, in example the Iddah after the death of a husband. What is meant by the later verse means it was revealed later (most recent revealed thing which closer to our time). If you were a companion of the prophet, you would have been present for both verses of Iddah to be revealed with one verse being closer to the present moment.  

What to do if 2 hadith seem to be specific?

What do you do if you have 2 hadith that are seeming to be specific (to a certain situation). Let’s go through some examples, hadith 1. The prophet would do wudu and wash his 2 feet (this is well known reported in the 2 sahihs without doubt). The 2^nd hadith is that the prophet would splash water on his feet in wudu while his feet was in sandals (this is reported by nasii bayhaqi and others) (The footnotes contain the entire narration- the prophet would wipe over socks and sandals – in bayhaqi the prophet would do wudu and wipe over his sandals). This emits the rubbing and mentions that he is wiping over an entire sandal without washing the entire foot. To be able to combine these 2 narrations they would say splashing upon the foot is the ablution of someone who has not lost their wudu. Wudu means to clean yourself but it has a legal meaning and a linguistic meaning. In English to pray could make dua or a specific ritual stipulated in Islam. The prophet was just cleaning his feet in the view of some jurist rather than actually doing wudu and that closes the contradiction between these 2 hadith. Some have said the splashing is fagarative but he did actually wash his feet while some say it’s a general washing Imam Hattab offers of 2 solutions for the contradiction. We have so much evidence that the prophet performed Wudu in a specific way and transmitted to other so that in itself is a proof that the splashing is a general splashing not him doing wudu. If you cannot combine between 2 hadith that are specific nor do you know their sequence in which they were revealed refrain until you have evidence that allows you to give preference to one over the other.

Another example of 2 hadith which deal with the same issue

Another example of 2 hadith which deal with the same thing are when the prophet asked what is permissible for women during hayd he said what is above their izar (skirt) If your wife has hayd you can do whatever you like above the waist (kissing etc), The prophet said do whatever you like except Nika (meeting of 2 private parts). The first says do whatever you like above the waste, the 2^nd says do anything you want except intercourse which makes us ask can you touch her legs? Can you touch her foot? What the prophet meant is don’t have intercourse but there are some who take the stricter view of not touching below the waist at all. The mashur of the Maliki and shafi’I say simply don’t have intercourse is the meaning but Abu Hanifa and other Ulema take the stricter view point (don’t touch below the waist at all). In the words of the commentor after mentioning the 2^nd hadith is that the jurist such as Imam Nawawi and other agree with the Maliki mashur.

What if one hadith is specific and then one is general?

If you have one hadith that is general and one specific then the general is specified by the specific such as the hadith found in the 2 sahihs what comes from the sky a 10^th, this refers to zakat on agriculture as you pay 1/10^th of your crop yield if it is getting watered from the sky. If you irrigate it you don’t pay that same amount. Another hadith “There is not charity on what is less than 5 awsaq (less than a wasq)” If you had rain fed crops that was less than 5 wasq in yield one hadith sasy you pay on it the other says you don’t pay on it so which do you take? In this case the rule state the general rule is specified by the 2^nd revealed hadith. What is missing from these 2 hadith is the nisab (threshold) for money or agriculture or herd of camels, this is another way you can make both hadith harmized as well.

expounding on this point

If one of the naskh is general in one respect and specific in other than the general is within the specific and if you can’t then you need tarjih which Imam Hattab means by this to choose one to metaphorically complete the puzzle piece. You when working out what the prophet intended you want to preserve as much hadith as possible and interpret them in the purest way.

Abi dawood and the authors of the 6 sahih books

The most in the specification rule is abi Dawood one of the authors of the 6 sahih books said if the water reaches 2 quls then the water can’t be made Najis There another hadith in maja that says water is not Najis unless its smell color and taste has changed. Thes 2 hadith give two slightly different ruling the first is specific to the 2 quls its volume and general characteristics of the water the 2^nd is specific about the characteristic of the water and is silent about its volume. How do we fit these two puzzle pieces together?

What is the final conclusion of compromise on these 2 hadith?

The Qualatan means is its very unlikely that the water would be made Najis from a normal even and if you had such a large amount of water and filth was dumped in and its color taste and smell changes then that water would then be Najis. If you had 2 quls of water and dumped 2 quls of najas into it you cannot use it for wudu it would be absurd to interoperate it from the perspective that 2 quls make things unable to be impure would make it seen as 2 quls is un-wudu-abled (unable to do wudu).

expounding on this point

It can also be ruled that another interpretation of these w Hadith is what is less than 2 quls can be changed and that is the view of the shafi’is which gives preference to the qulatanw but imam hattab says the 2 Hadith is more specific and Malik’s gives more preference towards it The first Hadith gives a general rule while the maliki usl prefers the specific. Malikis and shafi’i take the same Hadith corpus (which is interesting Muslims despite differences all read from the same Hadith) what is differing is what your putting more emphasis on and what is more authoritative Whatever about a water than is less than 2 qulatayn can be made najas by what what is less than it, the shafi”I are strict with purity rulings while imam Malik’s is less There is a story about a man in Yemen who swat the flies in the masjid which ruined the prayer room in the eyes of the shafi’i in tareem

an example that needs tarjih

Whoever changes his religion kill him (Kitab al Jihad) and the 2^nd hadith is the prophet forbade killing women. What do you do if a woman leaves her religion? If a hindu becomes Christian there is not punishment but a Muslim leaving Islam for another religion on the other hand can warrant capital punishment. Imam hattab says the first hadith is general it can be men and women but its specific to apostates while the 2^nd hadith Is specific to women. This requires tarjih (making preferential decision) the generality of the 1^st is preferred while the 2^nd hadith refers to the harbi’at (harb) the hostile women. If the Abbasid’s are fighting the byzantine and conquer the nation the women are left alone but as for an apostate they would be killed.