Can someone shed some light on the variant below : >Ukaz, Majanna and Dhul-Majaz were marketplaces in the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance. When Islam came, Muslims felt that marketing there might be a sin. So, the Divine Inspiration came: "There is no harm for you to seek the bounty of your Lord (in the seasons of Hajj)." (2.198) **Ibn `Abbas recited the Verse in this way**. (Sahih al-Bukhari 2050 Book 34, Hadith 4) Can this mode of recitation be considered abrogated?

Do Shi'as believe that the words of the Imams can abrogate the Quran? In what circumstances can this happen? If infallible Muhammad can abrogate the Quran with his own words, as many Sunnis believe, than that implies that the Imams can do the same, as they are also infallible. How do Twelvers and Ismailis differ on this question?

The following shows two seemingly contradictory ahadith on applying khaluq. >It was narrated that Zaid bin Aslam said: "I saw Ibn 'Umar dyeing his beard yellow with Khaluq and I said: 'O Abu 'Abdur-Rahman, are you dyeing your beard yellow with Khaluq?' He said: 'I saw the Messenger of Allah [SAW] dyeing his beard yellow with it, and there was no other kind of dye that was dearer to him than this. He used to dye all of his clothes with it, even his 'Imamah (turban).'" > >[Sunan an-Nasa'i 5085](https://sunnah.com/nasai:5085) >Narrated Ammar ibn Yasir: >The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The angels do not come near three: the dead body of the unbeliever, one who smears himself with khaluq, and the one who is sexually defiled except that he performs ablution. > >[Sunan Abi Dawud 4180](https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4180) Is one of them inauthentic? Or could this be an instance of abrogation?

>Ibn Abi Ammar said: "I asked Jabir bin Abdullah: 'Is the hyena game?' He said: 'Yes'" He said: "I said: 'Can it be eaten?' He said: 'Yes.'" He said: "I said: 'Did the Messenger of Allah say that?' He said: 'Yes.'" (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 851 ) I'm confused regarding the edibility of hyenas. The Hadith above stipulates that the meat is halal. However there are other ahadith where all predatory animals with canines are haram. Hyenas have canines and they're predatory. Could this be an example of abrogation? Could it be that hyenas were halal which were later counted as forbidden along with other predators?

The subject of abrogation is disputed between scholars since long time. The key passages concerning abrogation are 2:106 > We never nullify a verse, nor cause it to be forgotten, unless We bring one better than it, or similar to it. Do you not know that God is capable of all things? 6:34 > Other messengers before you were rejected, but they endured rejection and persecution until Our help came to them. There can be no change to God’s words. News of the Messengers has already reached you. There is more than one question on this site explaining how and why many scholars defend the concept of abgrogation. There are however also many scholars who do not accept the concept of abrogation in the sense that a later verse of the Quran (or even a Hadith) may invalidate an earlier verse (or earlier revelation) as being in conflict with the concept of the Word of God being unchanging and pre-existing. What explanation patterns are genarally suggested to replace the concept of abrogation in case of a conflict? https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/1448/how-to-reconcile-allahs-infallibility-with-naskh https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/not-understanding-the-concept-of-abrogation-naskh

Bismillah. Alhamdulillahi rabbil-'alamin was-Salatu was-Salam 'ala Sayyidil-Mursalin wa 'ala 'Alihi wa Sahbihi Ajma'in. ---------- I came across with claim **"Sunnah can abrogate Quran"**. So, **Can Sunnah abrogate Quran?**

>Sahih al-Bukhari, 4530 • Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book of Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an, Hadith 53 • Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an, Hadith 53 > >>Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: >> >>**I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place**." >>Chapter 2 verse 240 > >*Those of you who die leaving widows should bequeath for them a year’s maintenance without forcing them out.1 But if they choose to leave, you are not accountable for what they reasonably decide for themselves. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise*. Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran That

**Why this verse is in quran even thou it was abrogated and why did Uthman wrote it in quran**

There's Qur'an verses which are "obsolete": https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/38244/17163 although the formal term is naskh : > Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic word usually translated as "abrogation"; It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within, or between, the two primary sources of Islamic law: the Quran and the Sunna. This Wikipedia snippet suggests the possibility that there are hadith which are obsolete. This leads me to my question: **Question**: Are there obsolete hadith? I'm guessing the answer is yes, so a concrete example would be useful (ideally explaining how we know it's obsolete).

Salam Guys, I have a question that has been seriously bothering me for a while. In tafsir Al-Qurtubi and Itqan by Suyuti a narration has been quoted that shows that Surah At-Tawbah was originally equal to the length of Surah Baqarah. Here is the reference from Itqan by Suyuti:- Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow." - (The Itqan" by Suyuti Part 3, Page 184/ Itqan by Suyuti, part 3, page 72) Here is what Al-Qurtubu records in his Tafsir:- **Malik said among what had been narrated by Ibn Wahb and Ibn Al Qasim and Ibn Abdul Hakam is that when the first part of Surat Bara'at was lost, ‘Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem’ was also lost along with it. It has also been narrated from Ibn Ajlan that he heard that Surat Bara'at was equal to the length of Surat Al Baqarah or approximately equal to it, so the part was gone and because of that "Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem" wasn't written between them (between the lost and the remaining part) .”** ***(Tafsir al-Qurtubi on Surah al Bara'at)*** Some say that it is referring to abrogation of those verses. **But why does Imam Malik said that these verses were lost?** Imam Malik ibn Anas was asked as to why there is no "Bismillah" in this surah. **He said, "It was lost with its earlier parts, because it is confirmed that it was equal to surah al-Baqarah in length.** **But the main question is that is there any evidence from the Koran or authentic Hadiths that proves that many verses of Surah Tawbah were abrogated?**

Verses of the Quran can be abrogated. But one stands out, the abrogation of 10 sucklings of a baby to 5 sucklings to develop foster relationships. Why? Seems inconsistent. What's the big difference between 10 and 5? Was 10 a mistake? > 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed > in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage > unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings > and Allah's apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before > that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). [34 > Muslim, II, No. 3421.]

Read this carefully: > "...“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” > [al-Tawbah 9:5] > This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). > **These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.** > And Allaah is the Source of strength. " **(Source: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/34770/there-is-no-compulsion-to-accept-islam)** Here Islamqa used the phrase "**These and similar verses**" which refers to verses like surah 9:5, etc. What does "**abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim**" refer to? Obviously, it refers to verses like surah 2:256. So based on this, my question is "**Did verses like surah 9:5 abrogate verses (e.g. surah 9:256) which says there is no compulsion to become a Muslim?**

There are many *ayahs* in the Quran that have undergone *Naskh* (abrogation). Some of them are still in the Quran, others have been removed completely from the current Quran we read today. For instance, the so-called stoning *ayah*: ## الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عليم حكيم ## ## The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is the Most Mighty, Most Wise ## According to Sahih Muslim this was part of the Quran then removed. > 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit > of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah > sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the > Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent > down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood > it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment > of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, > after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that > with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do > not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go > astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty > laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit > adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a > confession. How does one reconcile Allah's infallibility with what seems like recanting previous *ayahs*? Views of any and all sects and schools of thought welcomed.

I understand that most scholars believe in abrogated verses in the Quran , while they differ on the conditions needed to claim a verse to be abrogated. Some fully deny the theory of abrogation in the Quran. Some scholars seems also deny naskh tilawa (i.e removed verses from the Quran). **Which sunni scholars deny naskh tilawa?** *These scholars also (or automatically) deny the ahadith which speaks about certain verses been removed from the quran, such as the one mentioned in this question , and the hadith of Aicha ([1] (https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/30),[2] (https://sunnah.com/urn/1320210)).* *When I mention scholars in my quesiton, I include (all kinds of) scholars: hadith, al-usuliyoun (of usul al fiqh), fiqh, tafsir.*

According to this article, it seems at least a scholar hold the belief that Jews also had abrogations in their Torah, but they denied it: >**Jews used to condemn abrogation and claim that it was not permissible, even though it was referred to in the Torah**; thus their rejection of it constituted disbelief and was based on pure whims and desires. > >Tafseer **as-Sa‘di, p. 61** > > Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/105746 **Question:** Are there any other scholars who say abrogation is not unique characteristic of Quran but also of other revelations?

Apparently there are some verses of the Qur'an whose ruling no longer applies; this is known as abrogation (naskh ). Which leads to the question... **Question**: Which Qur'an verses are abrogated? I'm wondering if there's a complete list of obsolete Qur'an verses to help the reader recognize them. Wikipedia references > We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? -- Qur'an 2:106 This indicates it should be possible to tabulate all the abrogated Qur'an verses.

I understand there is a widely accepted concept of [Naskh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29#In_the_Canon) or 'abrogation' that may apply when interpreting the Quran. I also believe it to be true that it isn't known in all cases which of two verses was written first (unless they are in the same Sura), but I think I'm right in saying that all the revelation received by the Prophet in Medina was later than all the revelation received by the Prophet in the Meccan period (please correct me if that is wrong). In that case is there a general principle that in cases where Meccan and Medinan revelation appears to conflict, the Medinan revelation abrogates the Meccan? In other words Meccan revelation can never abrogate the later Medinan revelation?