Qur'an: Comparative Study - 2:106

"Ma nansakh min ayatin aw nunsiha nati bikhayrin minha aw mithliha…"
Saadia Malik

(The essay below is supposed to be an objective presentation of four scholars’ interpretation of the word, “ayatin” and its implication, thus, on the arguable “law of abrogation”, in verse 2:106 of the Qur’an. An abrupt ending is somewhat inevitable given the author’s resolve not to bring in any subjectivity, and hence, any conclusion must be every reader’s own personal verdict.)

Asad translates verse 2:106 of the Qur’an as follows:

"Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar ones. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?"

He understands the term ‘ayatin’ here to mean message, rather than verse, which he says, is wrongly construed by many Muslim theologians. Because ayah literally means ‘verse’, this Qur’anic verse has been used to derive the flimsy “law of abrogation” that argues for the possibility of abrogation of one verse by another verse in the Book. This is totally unacceptable, for the Qur’an is not a product of human effort, whereby the author errs or finds himself at the behest of his short-comings; in the end, making up for those by offering better, more appropriate laws. In addition, there is no reliable tradition going back to the Prophet, suggesting the possibility of abrogated and abrogating verses within the Qur’an. The whole debacle owes itself to the earlier scholars’ inability to reconcile one Qur’anic passage with another. The easy way out was to declare one or some of the verses in question, “abrogated”. The end result has been nothing short of hotch-potch and confusion. Now, the scholars see themselves arguing over which verses were abrogated and which weren’t.

Since the preceding verse talks about the Jews’ and Christians’ insistence on rejecting any Message superceding the Bible, the only befitting interpretation of “ayatin” in this verse is “message”, that is, the Qur’an.

Mawdudi’s translation (rendered into English by Zafar Ansari) reads:

"And for whatever verse We might abrogate or consign to oblivion, We bring a better one or the like of it. Are you not aware that Allah is All-Powerful?"

He understands this verse to have been revealed in answer to the Jews’ and Christians’ constant attempts at pushing the Muslims off their pedestals of faith. The Jews would often try to confuse and ridicule Muslims at their claims of acquiring the word of God: If, as they said, the Bible too was sent down by their Allah, why did the same Creator cause it to be out-dated, replacing it with a new book? Why did he not preserve His word and His laws? Why were there revisions? And indeed, why did He cause his followers, from among believers in the Bible, to forget certain portions of His message? Certainly, they’d tell the Muslims, those questions could not be answered, in hope that the latter would altogether shun their faith in Allah Himself. Those were the cursing times during which this verse was revealed in order to strengthen the faithfuls’ resolve in appreciating their All-Knowing, All-Encompassing Allah. Nothing was beyond Him. If He willed His servants to forget something, it would be forgotten. If He willed for a new law to be established, it would replace the older one – if not for the better, for the same. Surely, Allah is All-Powerful.

Usmani admits himself to the traditionalist stance. He understands ‘ayatin’ to mean ‘verse’. The Jews would comment that various verses in the Qur’an were abrogated by those revealed at a later date. If this is, indeed, the book by Allah, then why were some verses no more applicable? Was He ignorant of those shortcomings earlier? Through this verse, God Himself answers and declares that no revealed verse had any flaws. He reveals what He deems most appropriate at one time, and abrogates it, when circumstances demand, in favour of a stronger commandment.

Islahi understands naskh[1] to mean abrogation of one legal directive for another. The Jews would often remark that if the Qur’an accepted Moses to be the Messenger of God, and the Torah to be His reavealed Word, why would the same God change injunctions given therein? The aim was to cause dejection within the ranks of Muslims, by way of convincing them of their God’s inability to foresee the failure of His own revelation, deeming replacement imperative.

Allah answers. [As Islahi’s pupil, Ghamidi also points out] “The principles of the Torah, which were abrogated because of evolution of society and change of circumstances were replaced by better ones and the ones that were caused to be forgotten were replaced by similar ones. None of these two sorts of replacement can be objected to. The first of them was a natural requisite of the change in circumstances and the other was necessary to compensate for the loss caused by the Jews to the corpus of religion.”[2]


1. As is also used by the Qur’an in Al-Hajj:52
2. Ghamidi, Javed Ahmed. Translated: Shehzad Saleem. 2004. “Surah Baqarah (100-121).” Monthly Renaissance. Journal on-line. Available from http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/SeptQurex2y4.html Accessed November 11, 2004