Shia scholars on abrogation in Quran

Shia scholars on abrogation in Quran

Abrogation is often rejected by some shias, but this article is aimed at making them realize that their scholars also believe in the abrogation in Quran.

Here are the quotes of their scholars:

1) Al-Rawindi said in his book (Fiqh Al-Quran) 1/204:
“… and abrogation in Islam is of three types: the abrogation of the ruling without the text (recitation), the abrogation of the text without the ruling, and the abrogation of both together”.

2) Al-Hili says in his book (Qawa’id Al-Ahkam) 1/210:
“Branches:
The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it.
It is forbidden to touch [the verses that] had only its ruling abrogated, but not what had its text abrogated”.

3) Al-Tusi said in his book (Al-Tibyan) 1/394:
“… and they differed on the methods of abrogation to four opinions: - Some said: It is acceptable for the ruling and text to be abrogated, but they can only be abrogated together. Others said: It is only acceptable for the ruling to be abrogated, but not the text. Others said: It is acceptable for Naskh to be done to the Quran from the Preserved Tablet (Al-Lawh Al-Mahfooz), like Naskh happens to a book from a previous book. And the fourth group said: It is acceptable for the text to be abrogated alone, and the ruling [to be abrogated] alone, and them together – and this is the correct [opinion] – and we pointed this out, and refuted the other opinions in Al-‘Udah fee Usul Al-Fiqh”.

5) Al-Hili said in his book (Mabade Al-Wusul) p. 181:
“The fourth section: What is permissible to be abrogated:
It is permissible: To abrogate something without replacing it, like the example of abrogating the ruling of giving charity when privately counseling [the prophet]; and to abrogate a ruling to something harder; and to abrogated the text (recitation) without the ruling; and vice versa”.

Al-Hili said in his book (Ma’arij Al-Usool) p. 170:
“The Sixth Issue:
The abrogation of ruling without the text is possible, and happened, like the abrogation of having the ‘Idah for one year, and the abrogation of the ruling of holding them in their homes.
Also the abrogation of text, but leaving the ruling is possible, and it is said that it happened, like what was said that in the Quran were some additional verses that were abrogated, and this (while its occurrence is not known for sure), is permissible (i.e. he accepts that it might have occurred).
It should not be said: if the ruling was abrogated then that would leave the text with no value, since there might exist a benefit that would necessitate leaving it (i.e. the text) …”

Al-Hili said in his book (Muntaha Al-matlab) 1/77:
“12: What has been abrogated by ruling only, is impermissible to be touched since its sanctity is that of the Quran, and the abrogated by text is permissible to touch, even if its ruling remains since it is no longer part of the Quran”.

He also said 2/223:
“As for the verses that have been abrogated in both their ruling and text, or the one that has only been abrogated in text, their ruling is that it is permissible to touch them, since the prohibition is associated with the name given to them that was lifted through the abrogation [i.e. they are no longer considered Quran], keeping the original”

He says in his book (Tahrir Al-Ahkam) 1/11:
“It is not permitted for one in a state of minor impurity to touch the wordings of the Quran, and it is permissible for him to touch the margin with no difference [in this prohibition] between the [verse] with the ruling abrogated or not. As for the abrogated texts, then it is permissible to touch them …”

He also says 1/83:
“8: It is not permitted for one in a state of minor impurity to touch the wordings of the Quran, and it is permissible for him to touch the margin, with no difference between the one with the ruling abrogated or not. As for the abrogated text then it is permissible to touch it”

6) Ibn Al-‘Alaamah says his book (Iydaah Al-Fawaed) 1/48:
“The first: The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it (his Ghusl).
The second: It is forbidden to touch what has had only its ruling abrogated, but not what has had its text abrogated”.

7) Al-Kirki said in his book (Jami’ Al-Maqasid) 1/270:
“Branches:
The Kaffir who is in a state of major impurity (Junub) has to perform Ghusl, and its condition [of acceptance] is Islam, and it [the obligation of Ghusl] does not fall by entering Islam even for an Apostate. And if a Muslim leaves Islam after his Ghusl it would not invalidate it.
It is forbidden to touch what has had only its ruling abrogated, but not what has had its text abrogated. As for what has both the text and ruling abrogated, like what was narrated from ‘Aisha, that there was a verse in the Quran that stated that ten breast suckles would lead to prohibition [of marriage] then it was abrogated, this it is not forbidden to touch, similarly what has been abrogated by text, but not the ruling, like the verse of the Shaykh and the Shaykhah, and it stated that: If a Shaykh and a Shaykhah commit adultery then stone them …, and its ruling is remaining, which is the obligation of stoning them if they were married. And some of what was narrated from the recitations of Ibn Mas’oud is close to being from this type, and it was not made forbidden to touch these since the prohibition is associated with the name, and that name left once the text became abrogated, returning to the original. As for what has been abrogated by ruling, but not the text is abundant, like the verse of Sadaqah, and the verse of 20 standing firm in front of 200, and the likes”.

8) Al-Shahid Al-Thani said in his book (Rawd Al-Jinan) p. 50:
“It is not hidden that prohibition is one of the types of rulings in Islamic law that is associated with the Mukalaf (one held accountable in Islam), thus a small child is not forbidden from it since he is not yet held accountable [for his deeds]. Yes, it is preferred for the one responsible [for the child] to prohibit him as a form of practice. There is no difference [in this prohibition] between the [verse] with the abrogated ruling or not, but not the one with the abrogated text. We do not associate with the Quran the [other] religious texts such as hadith, or something with the name of Allah written on it even if on a Dirham, Dinar, or something else”.

9) Al-Sayid Al-Murtada said in his book (Al-Zaree’ah) 1/428-429:
“A Section in the permissibility of abrogating the ruling with the text, and the text without [the ruling]:
Know that the ruling and text are two forms of worship that follow the interest, thus it is allowed for abrogation to enter into both of them simultaneously, and for one of them without the other, as is needed. And an example of the abrogation of ruling without the text, is the abrogation of yearly ‘Idah term, and in giving charity before private counseling [with the Prophet].
As for the examples of the abrogation of the text without the ruling, they are not known to occur for a fact, since it is coming from the way of Ahaad [non-multiply narrated] traditions, and it includes what has been narrated to have been part of the Quran (the old man and woman if they commit adultery then stone them) which has been abrogated by text.
And the examples of the abrogation of both text and ruling are also present in Ahaad traditions, and it is what was narrated from the way of ‘Aisha that she said: Among what Allah the Exalted revealed (ten suckles forbid) then it was abrogated by five, and that they were among the recited”.

10) Al-Khawansaari said in his book (Mashariq Al-Shumoos) 1/15:
“Fifth: The [verses] abrogated by text in the Quran, not the ones abrogated by ruling, are not considered part of it (the Quran)”.
He also says in the same book 1/166:
“It is permissible to touch the abrogated Books () and what has been abrogated by text (from the Quran …)”.

11) Al-Hindi said in his book (Kashf Al-Lithaam) new edition 2/42:
“B: It is forbidden on him to touch the abrogated by rulings specifically (i.e. if the text isn’t abrogated, since it is still a Quran), not the one abrogated in both the ruling and text, or the text specifically (since it is no longer considered Quran).

12) Muhammad Jawad Al-‘Amili said in his book (Mafatih Al-Karamah) 3/96:
“Second: It is forbidden to touch the abrogated by ruling only, as opposed to the one abrogated by text only”.

13) Al-Bahrani said in (Al-Hadaiq Al-Naddira) 2/125:
“Fifth: What is apparent the prohibition [to touch] includes what has been abrogated in ruling but not in text, since it still has its sanctity when it comes to recitation, [and still being called part of the Mushaf, the Quran and the Book – unsure I translated this correctly], as opposed to what has been abrogated in text, even if its ruling remains, it is not prohibited to touch it, (…), and I do not know any opposition to this [view]”.

14) Al-Naraqi said in his book (Mustanad Al-Shi’ah) 2/219:
“B: There is no prohibition to touch other then the Quran from the abrogated books, tafseer, hadith, …, or what was abrogated in recitation (Text) ..., as opposed to those that were abrogated in ruling not recitation”.

15) Al-Tusi said in his book (‘Idat Al-Usool) 3/36-37, under the Chapter: (Section in mentioning the permissibility of abrogated the ruling without the text, the text without the ruling) the following:
“All what we have mentioned abrogation is permitted to occur in it, since the recitation was a form of worship, and the ruling another form of worship, then it is possible for abrogation to occur in one and not the other, just as this is allowed in any two forms of worship. And if this is shown then it is permissible for abrogation to occur in text, but not in ruling, and in ruling but not in text.

If it is said: How can the ruling be abrogated while the recitation (text) remains, isn’t this a negation to the fact that the text is there to imply a ruling because if it was such then the implication should remain for as long as the recitation remains or that would lead to the negation of what we had already established. It is told to him [who makes this claim] that no, this is not considered a negation to the fact that it is an implication since it is there to imply a ruling for as long as the ruling is of greater benefit, but if the status of the ruling changes from being of greater benefit to something else, the recitation would no longer be used to imply that ruling. And it is not up to them to say that there is no use in keeping the recitation once the ruling has been raised, and that is because there is no reason why there would be no greater benefit in the recitation itself even if it did not imply the ruling, and since there is no reason that would prevent this then it is permissible to remain even after the raising of the ruling. And it is not for them to say that adopting this view would lead to saying that benefit is attained from just the Text (Words) even if they had no further benefit. This is from what we … [unclear word] since we prohibit this from happening in the matter they discussed if the Words had no benefit at all, and this is not the case in the abrogation of the ruling while keeping the text, since it contained a benefit and ruling that was associated with that text, but then the greater benefit differed in the future when it came to the ruling, so it was abrogated and the text remained because of what is contained in it from benefit, and this is contrary to the case that the questioner mentioned.

When it comes to abrogating the recitation, but keeping the ruling there is no suspicion in that, since we already established that the benefit can be associated with ruling independent from the recitation, and they can not say that the ruling has been established by the recitation so it cannot remain without the recitation since the text is an implication to the ruling so being absent does not necessitate that something has not been implied, don’t you see that the splitting of the moon and the walking of the tree were implications to the Prophethood of our Prophet, and what they implied remained even after they disappeared.


…
That and examples of abrogation were narrated in all what we mentioned since Allah abrogated the ruling of the woman’s term of one year to four month and ten [days], or abrogating the charity before private consultation with the Prophet, and the abrogation of the ruling regarding the one standing firm in front of the ten even though the recitation remains in all these cases.

Narrations of the abrogation of recitation while keeping the ruling also exist, such as the verse of stoning: (the old man and woman if they commit adultery then stone them …), and that was from what Allah revealed and was abrogated in recitation, but the ruling remains with no dispute. Similarly the fasting of three days consecutively in the expiation of breaking your oath was narrated in the recitation of ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’oud, and the recitation has been abrogated, but the ruling remains according to those who adopt this opinion (i.e. the opinion that the days have to be consecutive).

As for the abrogation of them both (the text and the ruling), is like what was narrated from the way of ‘Aisha that she said that among what was revealed by the Exalted is (ten suckles would forbid) which was abrogated by five suckles which shows that it was abrogated in both recitation and ruling. That and what we mentioned is given as an example, even if it is not proven to have happen that does not affect what we have mentioned of its permissibility and correctness, because what permitted this is what we have presented of proofs and that is sufficient in this regards”.

16) Muhammad Rida Al-Ansari Al-Qumi said in footnote of the book (‘Idat Al-Usool) 2/501:
“Abrogation in news/traditions are either there to abrogate the news itself or to abrogate its meaning and benefit [behind its revealation]: As for the first: is for the abrogation to be specific to the recitation or to be in regards to our responsibility to fulfill its rulings, such that we would be given the responsibility to transmitting that news or narration and then it becomes abrogated. And each of these two is permitted among the scholars who permit abrogation to occur.