The Orientalists have pointed out a few examples of abrogation of verses in the Qur’an. The abrogations are said to occur only in the Medinan revelations. This is because they deal with various subject matters. There are three subjects that the Orientalists have focussed upon to prove that abrogation took place. The first subject is intoxication. The Orientalist Levy criticizes the prohibition of wine in the Qur’an. He says that wine was at first associated with health benefits and was seen as pleasurable and that there was a river in paradise that would be of wine. He argues that this contradicts is a contradiction as the Qur’an on one hand prohibits it yet presents wine as a gift in paradise. The Muslim response to this is that it is true that wine is a reward that believers will receive in paradise. However, the wine that is in paradise is totally different to the earthly wine. It will be of better quality, have a different taste and will not have the harmful derivatives that are present in the wine that we have on earth. The initial verses- that are now abrogated- did not prohibit wine completely. The reason for this is because the people were accustomed to drinking wine and those who were embracing Islam needed time to change their previous habits such as drinking wine. Therefore the first revelation did not recommend intoxicants (16:67). The second stage was to limit the consumption of intoxicants at certain times; “The believers were commanded to shun intoxicants while making ready for prayers, lest they might not know what they were saying” (4:43). The final stage was a complete ban on intoxicants, which is in Surah 5 verses 90-91. Some Muslim scholars see the final verses as abrogating the previous two. Others say that they complement each other because all of them portray intoxicants in a negative way. So there is no contradiction between the verses as Levy points out. Ahmed Von Denffer gives examples of verses that are not abrogating but are specifying and clarifying. Verse 2:183 refers to fasting and tells the believer to feed a poor person if they are not fasting. The verse after that 2:184 specifies which people this rule applies to i.e. old people who are weak or someone who does not have the strength to keep a fast.
Hughes who believes that verse 240 in Surah 2 abrogates verse 234 in the same Surah has criticized the verses, which deal with widow’s rights. However, by reading the verses, it is clear that verse 234 outlines the procedure the widow has to follow after her husband’s death. She cannot marry within four months and ten days because she will be grieving and she might be pregnant. The verse 240 addresses the rights and privileges of the widow. If the husband knows that he will die soon then he should leave provisions for the wife. The wife can have financial rights and she can stay in her late husbands house for up to a year if she wants to, or she could move out. In no way do these verses contradict or abrogate each other. Instead they outline a procedure for the widow and then her rights and privileges. Close examination reveals that some verses complement each other or are refined in some way and they are not abrogating. The verses revealed after are actually providing more detail than the previous verse/s.
The Orientalists alleged that abrogation took place in a Meccan Surah 53, “The Star.” Sir Mark Sykes and other Orientalists claim that there was actually a verse in the Surah, between 20-21, that praised the idols but it was deleted. However, none of the critics have anything to support such a claim. The verses 19-23, comment on the main idols that were worshipped:
Have you thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzza,
And Manat, the third, the other?
Are yours the males and His the females?
That indeed would be an unfair division.
They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which
Allah has revealed no warrant.
They follow but a guess and that which (they themselves desire.
And now the guidance from their Lord had come to them. (53: 19-23)
All the verses are questioning the idol worshippers and showing them their shortcomings. These are thought provoking verses to make the idol worshippers realise that there is only one God. The Orientalists miss out the fact that every word that was revealed to the Prophet was and has been preserved and not changed in any way. The Orientalist assertion comes from the claim that the Prophet, in his early stages as a monotheist, retained some of his polytheist beliefs. However, they have no proof of this and make false accusations. They overlook the first basic principle of Islam: to believe in one God. They also make the assumption that the Prophet compromised with the non-believers. However, one of the earliest Surahs revealed addressed this issue:
Say, O disbelievers! I worship no that which you worship.
Nor do you worship that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which you worship.
Nor will you worship that which I worship.
Unto you your faith, and unto me mine. (109:1-6)
Therefore it is clear that the Prophet never adjusted or compromised his monotheistic belief in anyway. However, many other authors like Watt and H.G. Wells, claim that the Prophet believed in goddesses and would utter verses relating to this and he wanted this belief to be a revelation. This false accusation is baseless and has been conjured for misrepresentation purposes. It is an obvious deviation from what the whole of the Qur’an preaches and the belief and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad of the oneness of God. It is also clear that the Prophet could not interpolate such verses as they would not have blended with the flow of the Qur’anic verses and would have been obvious. Therefore the claim by Burton that the Prophet abrogated verses with his own traditions and views hold no ground whatsoever. A good example of this is the topic of punishment for those who have illicit sexual relation. The Orientalists say that the Prophet carried on the tradition of flogging and stoning of perpetrators of such crimes, which was not in the Qur’an. The stoning of adulterers was a biblical commandment that the Prophet administered. There are verses in the Qur’an (24: 2) that command punishments for those found guilty of these crimes. The Qur’an does not abrogate the type of punishments carried out by the Prophet.
The abrogation of certain verses was a claim put forward by the Orientalists whose main objective was to undermine the divine attributes of the Qur’an and to show imperfections in the Qur’an. The criticisms have been baseless and the alleged abrogations were actually verses that were complementing each other and not contradicting in any way. Generally, scholars agree that there are only a few instances of abrogation in the Qur’an. However, whether these verses can be classed as abrogations or complements, is still a debate. It is also clear that not all preceding verses abrogate but actually highlight a specific issue or “a certain evolution in the tenor of the revelations.” Claims for word suppression, like the one made for the Meccan Sura “The Star” by Sir Mark Sykes, are very weak and are baseless allegations. However, if the Qur’an is to be associated with abrogation then the whole of the Qur’an can be seen as abrogating. The Qur’an abrogates the previous scriptures of Torah and the Bible. Islam a universal law now replaced the law of the previous scriptures. Although the argument of complementing can also be used here because the previous scriptures, like the Qur’an, preach monotheism and the Qur’an is an improvement on them.
G. Helmut, The Qur’an and its Exegesis: Selected Texts with Classical and Muslim Interpretations, (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996) p 27
J. Renard, Seven Doors to Islam, University of California Press, 1996, p 9
F.J.L. Menezes, The Life and Religion of Mohammed, the Prophet of Arabia Sands, (London, 1911) p 160
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, (London, 1983) p 93
E. Palmer, The Koran, with an introduction by R. Nicholson, first published 1880, (Oxford University Press- London, 1928. p 93
M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, (Birmingham 2002) p 127
J. Renard, Seven Doors to Islam, p 4
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 97
R. Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, (Cambridge University press) Cambridge, 1962 p 163
M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p 307
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 98
A. Von Denffer, Ulum al Qur’an, The Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1994, p 103
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 98
A. Von Denffer, Ulum al Qur’an, p 3
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 99
A. Von Denffer, Ulum al Qur’an, p 108
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 100
W.M. (I) Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam Luzac, London 1948, p ii 59
M. Khalifa, The Sublime Qur’an and Orientalism, p 102
J. Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1977, p 71
N. Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an, SCM, London, 1996 p 67
A. Von Denffer, Ulum al Qur’an, p 105
