Abrogation (naskh) in the Qur'an

In Sha'rawi's account, naskh is the removal of an existing ruling and the placing of another in its stead, the first ruling being time-limited in God's knowledge from the start. ¹ He holds that this is not bada' (a change of mind in God): human law is amended once practice shows its shortcomings, whereas God's ruling already carries its term. ²

Sha'rawi separates a ruling with a fixed term from a ruling that is later corrected. He takes the change of qibla from Jerusalem to the Ka'ba as the example: facing Jerusalem was part of God's law for a period, and was not a response forced on the legislator by events. ^{2 3}

On the question of naskh bringing "something better or its like", Sha'rawi holds that the abrogated ruling was good in its time and the later one is an increase in good or an equal in burden. The change of qibla is his example of equality: the effort of facing one direction or another is the same, and the test lies in the command coming from God. ^{4 5 6}

Sha'rawi says naskh does not reach two things: the articles of belief, which stand from Adam to the Last Day, and reports of past events, which are true messages about what happened and cannot be abrogated. He gives the story of the elephant as the second case. Naskh belongs to obligations, and he illustrates it with the rule that one believer must stand against ten, later lightened because God knew the believers were weak. ^{6 7}

This entry records Sha'rawi's view only, from these pages. The conditions and kinds of naskh set out by the usul scholars, the academic view and other views are not yet entered, because their sources have not been read and cited.