Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:106

This was revealed when the polytheists—or the Jews—said: "Do you not see Muhammad, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, commanding his companions to do something, then forbidding them from it, and commanding them to do the contrary? He says something today and recedes from it tomorrow. This Quran is nothing but the words of Muhammad, which he speaks from his own inclination; it is speech that contradicts itself."

"Abrogation" (al-naskh) in the language means removing an image—or that which holds the status of an image—from a thing and establishing its like in another, whether in accidents or in essences. Among its usages in the aggregate is "transmigration" (tanasukh). It has been used for each of the two [meanings] metaphorically, which is preferable to claiming polysemy; hence, al-Raghib [al-Isfahani] favored this. From the first usage is: "The wind erased (nasakhat) the traces," meaning it removed them. From the second is: "I transcribed (nasakhtu) the book," when you establish what is in it in another place.

The abrogation of a verse—according to what some usuliyyun (legal theorists) have approved—is the declaration of the end of the obligation of reciting it, such as the verse: "The adult male and adult female, if they commit adultery, then stone them as a punishment from Allah; and Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise." Or it may refer to the ruling derived from it, such as the verse: "And those who are taken in death among you and leave widows behind—for their wives is a bequest: maintenance for one year without turning them out." Or it may be both together, such as the verse: "Ten known sucklings that forbid [marriage]." In this, the perpetuity derived from its generality is lifted; hence, some defined it as "the lifting of a legal ruling." It is a declaration with respect to the Lawgiver, and a lifting with respect to us. The condition of "obligation" excludes the "termination date" (ghayah), for that is a declaration of the end of the duration of the ruling itself, not a declaration regarding the obligation to it. The definition is restricted to rulings, for there is no obligation in the reports (akhbar) themselves.

"Or cause it to be forgotten" (nunsih): This means causing it to depart from the hearts so that it does not remain in the memory. This has occurred; for some companions wanted to recite some of what they had memorized, but did not find it in their chests. They asked the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and he said: "It was abrogated last night from the memories." Muslim narrated from Abu Musa: "We used to recite a surah which we likened in length and severity to [Surah] Bara'ah, then I forgot it, except that I memorized from it: 'If the son of Adam had two valleys of wealth, he would seek a third, and nothing fills the belly of the son of Adam but dust.' And we used to recite a surah we likened to one of the Musabbihat (surahs beginning with the glorification of Allah), then I forgot it, except that I memorized from it: 'O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? So a testimony is written upon your necks and you will be questioned about it on the Day of Resurrection.'"

There is a difference of opinion as to whether this [forgetting] can happen to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, as it happens to others. Those who hold the first view cited the verse: "We will make you recite, and you will not forget, except what Allah wills." This is the school of al-Hasan. Those who hold the second view cited the verse: "If We had willed, We could have taken away that which We revealed to you," as it indicates that He does not will to take away what He revealed to him, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. This is the opinion of al-Zajjaj, though it is not strong, as it is permissible to interpret "that which" as referring to types of revelation to which that [forgetting] does not apply. Abu Ali said: "The meaning is that We did not take away all of it." Under both interpretations, it does not contradict the exception. Glory be to Him who does not forget!

Some interpreted "abrogation" as the removal of a ruling, whether the wording remains or not, and "forgetting" as the removal of the wording, whether its ruling remains or not. Others interpreted the first as removing [it] to a substitute for the previous ruling, and the second as removing [it] without a substitute. Both interpretations have been criticized on the basis that restricting abrogation to this meaning is contrary to language and convention, and that "forgetting" (nisyan) is literal in the sense of removal from the heart, and interpreting it metaphorically without the impossibility of the literal meaning is forced. Perhaps what is grasped for the validity of these two interpretations from the narrations of some great figures has not been proven.

"Ma" (What) is a conditional particle (shartiyyah jazimah) for "nansakh" (We abrogate), and it is in the accusative case as its object. There is no contradiction between it being an operator and being operated upon because the aspect differs: by virtue of containing the condition, it is an operator, and by virtue of being a noun, it is operated upon. One must posit that it is the one governing the condition, otherwise, it would necessitate two operators acting upon a single object. It indicates the possibility of the occurrence of what follows it, as the basic rule for it is to enter upon potential matters.

The people of the religions have agreed on the permissibility of abrogation and its occurrence. The Jews, other than the 'Isawiyyah sect, opposed its permissibility, saying: "It is rationally impossible." Abu Muslim al-Isfahani opposed its occurrence, saying: "Even if it is rationally permissible, it has not occurred." The investigation of this is in the [books of] Usul.

"Min ayah" (of a verse): [The phrase] is in the position of the accusative as a specifier (tamyiz), and the specified is "Ma"—meaning: "Whatever thing We abrogate of a verse." The possibility of "min" being an expletive or making "ayah" a state (hal) is of no substance, nor is the possibility that "Ma" is a verbal noun (masdariyyah) and "ayah" is the object—meaning: "The abrogation of a verse we abrogate." Indeed, this latter possibility is even more severe and bitter, as is not hidden. The accusative pronoun [in nansaha] returns to "ayah," akin to the expression "I have a dirham and a half," because the abrogated is not the forgotten. Specifying the "verse" (ayah) by mention is due to the prevailing case, otherwise, the ruling is not restricted to it, but applies to what is less than it, according to what has been said.

A group, including Ibn Amir among the seven, recited "Nunsikh" from the fourth form (if'al). The hamza, as Abu Ali said, is for "finding" a property, like ahmadtuhu (I found him praiseworthy). Thus, the meaning is: "What we find abrogated," and we do not find it so except by our abrogating it. Thus, the two recitations agree in meaning, even if they differ in wording. Ibn 'Atiyyah allowed that the hamza be for causation (ta'diyah); in this case, the verb acts upon two objects. The estimation would be: "What We permit you to abrogate of a verse," meaning what We have allowed you to abrogate. It is as if when Allah abrogated it, He permitted His Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, to abandon it through that abrogation, so He called that permission insaakh (causing to abrogate). Some made insaakh an expression for the command to abrogate, and the one commanded is the Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, or Gabriel, peace be upon him. The possibility exists that it is from "transcribing the book," i.e., "what we write and send down from the Preserved Tablet," or "what we delay in it and leave, so we do not send it down." The two pronouns that follow return to what the pronoun in nunsaha returns to, stemming from forgetting the rule that a conditional noun must have a pronoun returning to it in its answer.

Umar, Ibn Abbas, al-Nakha'i, Abu 'Amr, Ibn Kathir, and many others read "Nunsi'ha" (with a fatha on the nun, the sin, and a sukun on the hamza). A group read it likewise, but with an alif without a hamza (not elided due to the jazim because its root is the hamza from nasa'a meaning to postpone). The meaning in the famous reading is: "We postpone its descent in the Preserved Tablet, so We do not reveal it," or "We distance it from the mind such that its meaning and wording are not remembered." This is the meaning of nunsaha, so the two recitations are unified. It was said—and perhaps this is more refined—that the meaning is: "We delay its revelation." This pertains to the abrogating verse, as He delayed that for the duration of the existence of the abrogated verse. The "brought" [verse] in this case is the abrogated verse, just as at the time of abrogation, it is the abrogating verse. The meaning of the verse, accordingly, is that the lifting of the abrogated verse is by the revelation of the abrogating one, and the delay of the abrogating one is by the revelation of the abrogated one; each of them contains the benefit in its own time.

Al-Dahhak and Abu al-Raja' read "Nunsaha" in the active voice for the first person plural from tansiyah (causing to forget), with the first object elided. It is said: Ansanihi Allah (Allah caused me to forget it) and nassanihi (He made me forget it) are the same, meaning: "We cause someone to forget it." Al-Hasan and Ibn Ya'mar read tunsaha with a fatha on the ta. It is attributed to Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and a group likewise, except they added a hamza. Abu Haywah did the same, except he gave the ta a damma as if it were from insa'. Ma'bad read it similarly without a hamza. Ubayy read nusk with a damma on the first nun and a kasra on the sin, without a hamza, and with the kaf of address. In the codex of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, it is nunsikha (with the two objects revealed). Al-A'mash read: "Whatever We abrogate of a verse or cause to be forgotten, We bring its like."

The relevance of the verse to what precedes it is that it contains what is of the category of abrogation, as the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were permitted for a time to say "Ra'ina" (Look at us/Observe us), and His—may He be exalted—approval of a thing is placed in the position of a command or permission for it. Then they were forbidden from that, so it was a subject of suspicion that imitated what was mentioned in the reason for the revelation. Or, it is because when He mentioned that He is "Possessor of great bounty," the rabble almost lifted their heads and said: "Part of the bounty is the absence of abrogation," because when souls become accustomed to something, it becomes easy for them. So He, glory be to Him, brought what would bow their heads and break their pride, signaling that abrogation is part of His great bounty and immense generosity. Or, it is because when He signaled the truthfulness of the revelation and refuted the speech of those who hated it, He followed it directly with what clarifies the secret of abrogation, which is one of the types of sending down revelation and refuting the argument of those who attack it. So let one reflect.

"We bring better than it or its like" (na'ti bi-khayrin minha aw mithliha): Meaning, [We bring] something that is better for the servants than it, or "its like" in ruling or lack thereof, in recited revelation or otherwise. "Better" is more general than being only in benefit, or only in reward, or in both. "The like" is specific to reward, as some investigators have pointed out. They detailed this: if the abrogator is an abrogator of the ruling—whether it abrogates the recitation or not—it must contain a benefit that the previous ruling lacked, for rulings are only varied for benefits, and their change is contingent upon the change of those benefits according to the times. Thus, the abrogator is better than it in benefit, whether it is better than it in reward, its like, or there is no reward in it at all, such as if the abrogator contains permission or the absence of a ruling. If it is an abrogator of the recitation only, "better" in benefit cannot be imagined, due to the lack of change in the previous ruling and benefit. So it is either better than it in reward or its like.

The same condition applies to insa': if the forgotten [verse] contained a ruling, then what is brought in its place is better in benefit, whether the benefit is due to its absolute lack of a ruling, or its lack of that ruling while containing a ruling that entails a benefit the forgotten ruling lacked, along with the possibility of being better in reward or its like. If it did not contain a ruling, then what is brought after it is either better in reward or its like. The conclusion is that being "like" in benefit is not imaginable because, upon the change of the ruling, the benefit changes; therefore, it is better than it. And upon the condition of [the ruling's] change, the first benefit remains as it was.

It is not hidden that the aforementioned generalization is based on the permissibility of abrogation without a substitute, and the permissibility of abrogating the Book with the Sunnah, which is the supported doctrine. Some people forbid that, and they also forbid abrogation with a heavier substitute, and they argued based on the literal meaning of the verse. As for the first: they say it is not imaginable that what is brought is better or its like except in [the case of] a substitute. As for the second: [they argue] that the abrogator is what is brought as a substitute, and it is better or its like, and the One who brings it is Allah—and the Sunnah is not better than, nor is it the like of, the Quran, nor is it from what He, may He be exalted, has brought. As for the third: [they argue] that the heavier is not better than the lighter, nor its like.

This was refuted: As for the first and third, we do not concede that being "better" or "like" is only imaginable in a substitute, nor that the heavier cannot be better than the lighter. For rulings were only legislated, and verses were only revealed, for the benefits of the servants and the perfection of their souls, as a bounty from Him and a mercy. That varies according to the variation of eras and individuals, like medicine used to treat ailments: what is beneficial in one era may be harmful in another, and what removes the illness of one person might remove the illness of another. Therefore, the absence of a ruling or the heavier ruling may be more suitable for the order of livelihood and more systematic in the reform of the hereafter. Allah is Subtle, Wise. It is not an objection that the literal sense of "We bring better than it" is "a verse better than it," and that the absence of a ruling is not "brought," for the dispute regarding the permissibility of abrogation without a substitute is not in bringing wording to replace the first verse, but in the ruling itself, as is not hidden to one who examines the Usul.

As for the second [argument], we do not concede the restriction of the abrogator to what was mentioned, for it is permissible that abrogation be known by something other than what is brought. The content of the verse is nothing more than that the abrogation of a verse necessitates the bringing of what is better than it or its like; it does not necessitate that that be the abrogator. So it is permissible that it be a different matter that occurs after the occurrence of abrogation. If that is permissible, it is permissible that the abrogator be the Sunnah, and what is brought that is better or its like be another verse. Moreover, the Sunnah is from what Allah has brought, for He says: "And he does not speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed." The "better" or "the like" is not intended in the wording, such that the Sunnah would not be so, but rather in benefit and reward. Thus, it is permissible that what the Sunnah contains be better in that.

The Mu'tazilah argued from this verse for the created nature of the Quran, saying that the change derived from abrogation and the difference derived from being "better" at one time rather than another are from the accompaniments of created things and their consequences, so it cannot be realized without it [i.e., it being created]. It was answered that change and difference are accidents of that which the eternal Nafsi (Self-subsistent) speech relates to—these being the actions in command and prohibition, and the predicative relations in reports. That [change/difference] requires them in its relations, not in its essence. Imam al-Razi answered that what is described by them is the verbal speech, while the eternal [speech] is the Nafsi speech according to us. He was objected to on the grounds that this contradicts what the Ash'arites have agreed upon: that the ruling is eternal, and abrogation only takes place in rulings.

Abu 'Amr read "Na'ti" by turning the hamza into an alif.

"Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?" The interrogation is said to be for confirmation (taqrir), and it is said to be for negation (inkar). The address is to the Messenger, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and it is intended by way of metonymy for him and his Muslim nation. He singled him out because he, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, is the most knowledgeable of them and the source of their knowledge, and to convey hyperbole with brevity. It is also said that it is for everyone who stands upon it, similar to "Good news to the walkers." It is also said that it is for those who deny abrogation, and the intention is to use the knowledge of the addressee regarding what was mentioned as evidence for His—may He be exalted—competence for abrogation and for bringing what is better or its like, for that is among the things subjugated under His power, glory be to Him. So, whoever knows the comprehensiveness of His power—mighty and majestic is He—over all things, knows His competence for that, definitively. The turn (iltifat) to using the Glorious Name in place of the pronoun is to foster awe, and because it is the proper noun that gathers all other attributes; thus, within it is the attribute of competence, so it is more eloquent in attributing competence to Him than the pronoun of the glorifying First Person.