Abrogation (naskh) in legal theory

النَّسْخ

Naskh, in the lexicon, means copying one text from another, and also annulment or removal. In the technical sense it is a later legal proof arriving after an earlier one and prescribing a ruling contrary to it. It is a change as far as we know, and a statement of the ruling's term as far as God's knowledge is concerned. It differs from specification (takhsis), which excludes some cases before a ruling takes effect, whereas naskh lifts a ruling after it has taken effect. It also differs from the firm (muhkam) and from interpretation (ta'wil). Naskh has three kinds: abrogation of the ruling while the recitation stays, abrogation of the recitation while the ruling stays, and abrogation of both. Most scholars hold it is possible by reason and has occurred by revelation; a few later thinkers denied it. For it to occur, the abrogated ruling must be legislated and not a custom that people were left to keep; the abrogating proof must come separately and later, not joined to the ruling as a condition or exception; it must come by a legal address; the abrogating proof must be stronger or equal; the ruling must not belong to the roots of faith or be something the text has made permanent, which is why there is no naskh in reports. A heavier ruling may be replaced by a lighter one and the reverse, and a ruling may be lifted without any replacement. Abrogation of a Qur'anic ruling by a single report is refused, while abrogation by a widely transmitted Sunna is disputed, and the majority allow it. Prayer with a verse whose ruling is abrogated but whose recitation stays is agreed to be lawful, and a menstruating or impure person may not recite it. For a verse whose recitation is abrogated, prayer with it is not lawful, but reciting it is not forbidden to them. For the Qur'anic naskh debate in a modern commentary, see the separate entry on abrogation in the Qur'an. ^{1 2 3 4}