Abrogation (Naskh) Index
Abrogation (naskh) is the replacement of one ruling of the law by a later one. Many verses have been claimed to be abrogated, by another verse or by the Sunnah, and the ʿAllāmah weighs each claim. He often finds no real conflict between the two verses, or that a later verse only qualifies an earlier general one (takhṣīṣ, specification) rather than cancelling it; in a few places he accepts that a ruling was abrogated. This index lists each place where he discusses such a claim, with his verdict, in the order of the verses. In the commentary, each of these places is marked Abrogation and links back here. His own account of what abrogation is comes in his commentary on ().
Not abrogated 61 · Abrogated 12 · Specified, not abrogated 6 · Undecided 4
2. Al-Baqarah
() Not abrogated
The claim: It might be said that the command 'and speak to men good [words]' was abrogated by the verse of fighting; a tradition from Imam al-Ṣādiq (al-ʿAyyāshī) says it was revealed about the dhimmīs and abrogated by ().
Al-Mizan: It cannot be said to be abrogated by the verse of fighting, because the two are not contradictory: the place and time of social contact is other than that of fighting. He adds that the tradition may be using 'abrogated' in its literal, not terminological, sense, in which case there is no conflict. → Read the discussion
() Undecided
The claim: According to the exegetes, the order 'But pardon and forgive [them]' was abrogated by the verse of fighting.
Al-Mizan: He only reports the exegetes' view, without a verdict of his own; on the next clause, 'until Allah should bring about His command,' he says it alludes to a command about the Jews that was to be revealed before long. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some say that some of the verses on the change of qiblah abrogated others, or that their order was changed, and they narrate traditions to that effect.
Al-Mizan: The verses are well connected, joined by a common context about appointing the Kaʿbah as qiblah; the traditions go against their clear meaning and deserve no comment. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The earlier qiblah, Bayt al-Maqdis, was abrogated by the command to face the Sacred Mosque; here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: Bayt al-Maqdis was a valid qiblah as long as it was not abrogated; when God abrogates a rule it loses its validity from the time of abrogation, not from its original legislation, so the prayers already offered toward it were valid. → Read the discussion
() Undecided
The claim: It is said that the verse of bequest was later abrogated by the verse of inheritance; a tradition from the Fifth or Sixth Imam (al-ʿAyyāshī) also says the verses of inheritance abrogated it.
Al-Mizan: If it was abrogated, only its obligation was abrogated, not its being recommended; perhaps the qualification 'upon those who guard (against evil)' was used for this very purpose. He reconciles the tradition with the preceding ones in the same way: only the obligation was abrogated, and the bequest remains recommended. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A tradition from Abū Jaʿfar (al-Kāfī) says 'Whoever then alters it after he has heard it' was abrogated by the next verse ().
Al-Mizan: The tradition explains one verse with the help of another, so 'abrogated' is not used in its terminological meaning; the word is sometimes used by the Ahl al-Bayt in a sense different from that of the Principles of Jurisprudence. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some commentators say 'a counted number of days' meant three days each month plus ʿĀshūrāʾ, and that 'the month of Ramaḍān …' () abrogated that system and the first two verses; others say 'a counted number of days' () abrogated 'Fasting has been prescribed for you' ().
Al-Mizan: Such a system would have been recorded in history; the three verses are one interconnected speech promulgating the fast of Ramaḍān, and even on their reading there is no contradiction, and no verse can abrogate another without contradiction. The second view is even weaker. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some say 'on those who are with difficulty able to do so is a redemption' gave able people an option to fast or feed a poor man, later abrogated by 'whosoever of you witnesses the month, he shall fast therein' ().
Al-Mizan: The redemption is obligatory, not an option; this explanation is 'playing with the Qur'an' and chopping a well-connected speech into fragments, so that nothing of the verses would remain intact. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: A group of commentators say this verse abrogated the prohibition of intercourse in the nights of the fast; others say it abrogates nothing, since the verse of fasting did not prohibit it at night. Here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: The wording ('you were acting unfaithfully … He has turned to you … now be in contact with them') shows a prior prohibition, which this verse lifted. Perhaps that prohibition was among the rules the Prophet explained, so this verse cancels not another verse but a tradition of the Prophet. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A tradition implies the Prophet had allowed the custom of entering houses from the back during iḥrām, so that this verse () abrogated a rule enforced by the Prophet's order; () is the supposed abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: The verse does not support this: it says the practice is not righteousness, and it is unimaginable that God or His Messenger enforced a rule and then, on abrogating it, condemned it as against righteousness. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some say that some of these verses abrogate others, or that they were revealed on separate occasions.
Al-Mizan: The six verses together promulgate a single law with all its limits and details, apparently sent down together, aiming at permission to fight the polytheists of Mecca who were fighting the believers. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Al-Rabīʿ b. Anas and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Zayd b. Aslam (Majmaʿ al-bayān) say the verse was abrogated by 'Kill the polytheists wherever you find them' ().
Al-Mizan: It is their own opinion: () does not abrogate 'And fight in the way of Allah …'; rather it generalizes an order which was specific. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some wrote that 'And fight with them until there is no more mischief' was abrogated by (), 'Fight those who do not believe … until they pay the jizyah'.
Al-Mizan: Neither verse abrogates the other because they deal with different subjects: this verse concerns the Meccan polytheists, while () concerns the People of the Book, from whom Islam accepts tribute on their profession of monotheism. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some argue that mutʿat al-ḥajj could be prohibited, as ʿUmar did, by the authority of the ruler (ʿulū al-amr).
Al-Mizan: The ruler's authority does not extend to the laws of the shariah; the Qur'an declares that it is a Book not to be abrogated and that its laws remain until the Day of Resurrection (), 'falsehood' there including abrogation. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Al-Suddī says this verse was about spending on one's family and alms, before there was zakāt, and the law of zakāt abrogated it.
Al-Mizan: The relation between the verse of zakāt () and this verse is not of abrogation at all, 'or does the word abrogation mean something else in their language?' → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It has been said that this verse (forbidding fighting in the sacred month) was abrogated by 'then slay the idolaters wherever you find them' ().
Al-Mizan: This view is not correct; the verse clearly shows that fighting in the sacred month is forbidden, and he refers to the explanation given in the commentary on the verses of fighting. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A narration from al-Shaʿbī on the stages of the prohibition of intoxicants implies that () abrogated (), and that () was in turn abrogated by ().
Al-Mizan: This implication in itself is sufficient to show the claim's invalidity. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some say this verse (alone or with ) abrogated (), which permits marrying chaste women of the People of the Book, or that () abrogated them; some traditions also speak of abrogation between it and al-Māʾidah.
Al-Mizan: This verse prohibits marriage only with idol-worshipers and () concerns keeping a marriage with a wife who remains an unbeliever, so the subjects differ. Even otherwise, () is a relaxation described as God's grace and cannot be abrogated, and al-Māʾidah was revealed last: earlier verses cannot abrogate it. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: The verse of tillage () might be thought to have abrogated the verse of menstruation ().
Al-Mizan: Whichever was revealed first, the verse of tillage could not have abrogated it, because both reasons the verse of menstruation gives (that it is a discomfort, and that the order serves cleanliness, which God loves) remain valid. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The verse prescribing a bequest of a year's maintenance for widows; traditions in al-ʿAyyāshī say it was abrogated by the waiting period of four months and ten days and by the verse of inheritance.
Al-Mizan: The definite article in 'the year' shows it was revealed before the rule of the waiting period of death was promulgated; 'obviously' it was abrogated by the verses of the waiting period of death and of inheritance. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some writers think 'There is no compulsion in the religion' was abrogated by the verse of the sword.
Al-Mizan: The order is followed by its reason, 'truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error'; it cannot be canceled unless its reason is, and the verses of fighting do not negate that distinction, so the order remains valid. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Traditions from Abū Hurayrah, Ibn ʿAbbās and others say that 'Allah will call you to account for it' imposed a duty beyond ability and was abrogated by 'Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability' ().
Al-Mizan: These traditions contradict the evident meaning of the verse; imposing a duty beyond ability is invalid, especially for God, and abrogating an order before it is acted upon is not acceptable in Islam; moreover () is not capable of abrogating any rule and its subject is different. → Read the discussion
3. Āl ʿImrān
() Not abrogated
The claim: A tradition in al-ʿAyyāshī from Abū ʿAbdillāh says the verse 'fear Allah with the fear which is due to Him' is abrogated by 'Therefore fear Allah as much as you can' (); some exegetes take this as cancellation.
Al-Mizan: The 'abrogation' in the tradition, as the tradition of Wakīʿ suggests, refers to the various stages of piety; it does not mean cancellation, which is against the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. In the commentary he explains that the first verse points to the ultimate goal and the second shows the way. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some maintain that "be careful of Allah as much as you can" () abrogates "be careful of Allah with the care which is due to Him" ().
Al-Mizan: There is no contradiction between them: the difference is that of quantity and quality, commanding every instance of Godwariness within one's ability and commanding that each be done as it deserves; so the claim of abrogation is apparently invalid. → Read the discussion
4. Al-Nisāʾ
() Not abrogated
The claim: Traditions from al-ʿAyyāshī and from Ibn ʿAbbās say 'whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably' was abrogated, by 'those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly' ().
Al-Mizan: The claim does not meet the criteria of abrogation: the permitted eating is conditioned on being reasonable and the forbidden eating on being unjust, so there is no contradiction. The verse is not abrogated, and the two traditions disagree with the Qur'an, apart from their weakness. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A report from the Tafsīr of al-Qummī says this verse was abrogated by 'God enjoins you concerning your children' ().
Al-Mizan: There is no justification for this view: the verse gives a précis of the inheritance laws that follow, and there is no contradiction between it and the decisive verses of inheritance. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: There is disagreement whether the verse (giving something of the estate to relatives, orphans and the needy present at the division) is decisive or abrogated by the verse of inheritance; some traditions say it was.
Al-Mizan: The two verses do not contradict, since the verse of inheritance fixes the heirs' shares while this one speaks of non-heirs without fixing any share; so there is no ground for abrogation, especially if the giving is only a recommendation, as the verse somewhat apparently shows. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The order to confine women guilty of indecency to their houses was replaced by a later penalty; traditions from al-Ṣādiq and al-Bāqir say the verse is abrogated, while Abū Muslim held that the verse (about lesbianism) is not abrogated.
Al-Mizan: The clause 'or Allah makes some way for them' indicates probable abrogation, which happened when the rule of flogging replaced this order; if the verse concerns fornicating women, it has been abrogated by the verse of flogging. He rejects Abū Muslim's reading. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: Al-Jubbāʾī used this verse (taken as being about adultery by married women, later replaced by stoning) to prove that the Book may be abrogated by the Sunnah.
Al-Mizan: It is not so: abrogation repeals an order apparently meant to continue forever, while this order of confinement itself points to its temporariness ('or Allah makes some way for them'), so even if it is called abrogation there is no difficulty. A parenthetical remark at the end of the next paragraph adds that this interpretation is not free from weakness, since a prior indication that a rule would be abrogated does not water down the abrogation. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The verse ordaining 'affliction' for the two guilty of indecency is said to have been replaced; Abū Muslim held it concerns sodomy and is not abrogated.
Al-Mizan: On his reading the verse gives the rule for fornication other than adultery, and accordingly it stands abrogated by the verse of flogging in the chapter of 'The Light'; he adds 'God knows better.' → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It has been said that the verse of mutʿah was abrogated by 'And who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess' ().
Al-Mizan: Those verses cannot abrogate the verse of mutʿah, because they are Meccan and it is Medinite, and a Meccan verse cannot abrogate a Medinite one; moreover, the claim that mutʿah is not a marriage is unacceptable. → Read the discussion
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: Others say the verse of mutʿah was abrogated by the verses of the waiting period and divorce (; ), of inheritance (), or of number ().
Al-Mizan: The relation is not that of abrogator and abrogated but of general and particular, or unrestricted and restricted; e.g., the general verse of inheritance is particularized by tradition to exclude mutʿah wives. Probably the claimants could not distinguish the two relations; besides, these general verses came before the particular one. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It is claimed that the mutʿah clause was abrogated by the preceding verse of prohibition, 'Forbidden to you are your mothers…' ().
Al-Mizan: This is the most astonishing claim: the whole verse is one connected speech, so its earlier sentences cannot revoke a later clause, and it says nothing explicitly or implicitly about prohibiting temporary marriage. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Others say the verse of mutʿah was abrogated by the Sunnah: in the year of Khaybar, of the Conquest, or of the Last Hajj, or after repeated permission and prohibition.
Al-Mizan: Such abrogation is invalid from the start, as it goes against the mutawātir traditions ordering Muslims to judge traditions by the Qur'an. In the traditions section he adds that the reports contradict one another and the claims of abrogation by the Qur'an or tradition have no leg to stand on; what is agreed is that ʿUmar prohibited it. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some exegetes take 'those with whom your right hands have ratified agreements' as allies who received a sixth of the estate, so the verse would be abrogated by ; others take it as the brothers paired by the Prophet in Medina, whose mutual inheritance was abrogated by the verse of inheritance.
Al-Mizan: None of these meanings is supported by the text or context of the verse, so he sees no need to rebut them; on his own reading the phrase refers to husband and wife, matching the three categories of the inheritance verses. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A report from Ibn ʿAbbās says 'go forth in detachments, or go forth in a body' was abrogated by 'And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together' ().
Al-Mizan: The two verses are obviously not contradictory, so the latter cannot be said to have abrogated the former; even if there were any contradiction, it would amount to particularization or restriction, not abrogation. → Read the discussion
5. Al-Māʾidah
() Not abrogated
The claim: Traditions from Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Qatādah and al-Ḍaḥḥāk (and al-Qummī) say that 'nor those going to the Sacred House' was abrogated by 'then slay the idolaters wherever you find them' () and 'so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year' ().
Al-Mizan: All these traditions should be discarded: al-Māʾidah was the last sūrah revealed, the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt said it is abrogating, not abrogated, and 'This day have I perfected for you your religion' refutes the idea that any of its verses were abrogated; the phrase may be taken as explaining the prohibition of transgressing against those who once hindered the Muslims from the Sacred Mosque. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It is said that the permission to marry chaste women of the People of the Book is abrogated by 'do not marry the idolatresses until they believe' () or 'hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women' (); a tradition from al-Bāqir in al-Kāfī says it is abrogated by ().
Al-Mizan: A verse describing divine favor and relaxation cannot be made subject to abrogation, and both verses were revealed long before al-Māʾidah, so an earlier verse cannot abrogate a later one; the traditions say this sūrah abrogated earlier laws and nothing abrogated it, and the two verses do not concern marriage with Jewish or Christian women at all. If anything, () would abrogate (), not the reverse. → Read the discussion
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: A narration from Imam al-Bāqir says (permitting chaste women of the People of the Book) is abrogated by "do not hold to marriage bonds with disbelieving women" ().
Al-Mizan: Perhaps the Imam meant specification: concerns permanent marriage, while the permission in is specifically for temporary marriage. Technical abrogation is impossible, since was revealed before , and is in a context of granting favor. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A narration via Abū al-Jārūd from Imam al-Bāqir says is abrogated by ("do not marry the idolatresses") and by .
Al-Mizan: The report is weak, its transmitter being unreliable, and concerns idol-worshipping women while concerns women of the People of the Book, so the two do not conflict such that one could abrogate the other. → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: Traditions report ʿAlī's judgment that wiping (mash) over socks, which ʿUmar said the Prophet had done, was abrogated by this verse of al-Māʾidah; some companions narrated that the Prophet wiped over socks after its revelation. Here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: The ʿAllāmah accepts that the practice was abrogated by the Qur'anic verse itself, since the verse confirms wiping on the feet up to the ankles and socks are certainly not part of the feet; the narrations of wiping after al-Māʾidah are not free from confusion. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn ʿAbbās (and ʿIkrimah) is reported to have said that 'judge between them or turn aside from them' was abrogated by 'And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed' ().
Al-Mizan: The theme of the verses does not agree with this claim: they are interlinked and were revealed together, and () is not independent in meaning, so there is no reason to treat it as abrogating; besides, al-Māʾidah is abrogating, not abrogated. → Read the discussion
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: Some think () abrogated (), 'life is for life,' since it does not allow killing a free man for a slave or a man for a woman.
Al-Mizan: There is no room for this supposition: the position of () in relation to () is like that of an explanation in relation to its text. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A group of early exegetes take 'he who errs cannot hurt you when you are on the right way' as permitting abandonment of the Call and of enjoining good and forbidding evil when the believer has no security against harm; he examines this as either particularizing or abrogating the verses of the Call, so () is the supposed abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: This meaning seems far-fetched and does not agree with the context: the verse's language is not that of particularization, and the verses of the call and enjoining good and forbidding evil, which God made the foundation of this religion, refute abrogation. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn Jarīr narrates from Ibn ʿAbbās that this verse (on the witnessing of a will by two non-Muslims while traveling) is abrogated.
Al-Mizan: There is no proof of abrogation as claimed. → Read the discussion
6. Al-Anʿām
() Not abrogated
The claim: Al-Suyūṭī quotes al-Naḥḥās (al-Nāsikh) from Ibn ʿAbbās on 'Say: I am not placed in charge of you' and 'then slay the idolaters wherever you find them' (); as printed, the report says this verse abrogated ().
Al-Mizan: The statement is an introduction to the warning in the next verse, 'For every prophecy is a term' (); a statement such as this, a prediction rather than a command, cannot be abrogated. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn Jurayj (and Ibn ʿAbbās via al-Naḥḥās) say that 'And nothing of the reckoning of their deeds shall be upon those who guard against evil' was a Meccan verse abrogated in Medina by (), which forbids sitting with those who mock God's signs.
Al-Mizan: If (), identical in meaning to (), abrogated (), then () would have abrogated (), which is incompatible with the sūrah being revealed all at once; moreover, the meanings of (), () and () do not conflict at all. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn ʿAbbās said that 'do not eat of that on which Allah's name has not been mentioned' was abrogated by the exception 'And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you' ().
Al-Mizan: If () implies any abrogation, it would only abrogate the condition that the slaughterer be a Muslim, not the condition that God's name be mentioned, since the two verses do not disagree on that; this is in any case a jurisprudential issue. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn ʿAbbās said that 'and pay the due of it on the day of its harvest' was abrogated by the law of the tithe and half-tithe; al-Ḍaḥḥāk said zakāh abrogated every mention of charity in the Qur'an.
Al-Mizan: The relationship between this verse and the verse of zakāh is not one of abrogation: whether the donation here is obligatory or recommended, it does not contradict the law of zakāh; the same problem applies to al-Ḍaḥḥāk's narration. → Read the discussion
8. Al-Anfāl
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some early exegetes (Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Mujāhid, ʿIkrimah, from Ibn ʿAbbās) say it was abrogated by the khums verse ().
Al-Mizan: Verse established that the spoils belong to God and His Messenger, and only allows the fighters to use four-fifths of what is theirs; it reinforces , so there is no contradiction and hence no abrogation. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: ʿIkrimah and al-Ḥasan (al-Durr al-Manthūr) say "nor will Allah chastise them while they are seeking forgiveness" was abrogated by the next verse ().
Al-Mizan: This conflicts with the context and literal meaning of the verses; the wish to make all the verses about the Meccan polytheists drove this, and it is strange to call the conquest of Mecca "punishment", since it was mercy for polytheists and faithful alike. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It might be considered that "religion is entirely for Allah" () and the jizyah verse () are an instance of abrogation.
Al-Mizan: There is no conflict between this verse and the People of the Book keeping their faith while under the protection (dhimmah) of the Muslims and paying the jizyah, so there is no reason to treat them as abrogation. → Read the discussion
() Undecided
The claim: Ibn ʿAbbās (al-Durr al-Manthūr) says "if they incline to peace, incline to it" was abrogated by ; it is also narrated that it was abrogated by "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" ().
Al-Mizan: He does not rule on the narrations, remarking only that is not bereft of a hint at another forthcoming ruling in its words "incline to it and trust in Allah". → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The narrations (from ʿAlī via al-Ṣādiq, Ibn ʿAbbās and others) say the one-to-ten battle ratio of was lightened to one-to-two by .
Al-Mizan: He does not use the word 'abrogation', but says there is no doubt that the two verses, though apparently revealed together, convey two rulings following each other in time, the second () mitigating the first. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some claim that abrogates "A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated the enemy" (), since this sūrah came after al-Anfāl.
Al-Mizan: There is no contradiction between the two: prohibits taking prisoners before decimating the enemy, and likewise indicates that prisoners are taken after the fighting. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: It might be held that ("the spoils of war belong to Allah and the Messenger") abrogated "eat of what you acquire" ().
Al-Mizan: The verb "eat" does not imply that the fighters were granted ownership of the spoils; it means they may use what the Prophet distributes to them, so did not abrogate . → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The Prophet decreed at the outset of the Migration that the Migrants and Helpers he joined in brotherhood would inherit from each other; here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: Verse abrogates that decree of the Prophet and establishes inheritance among blood relatives; he adds that there is no evidence that speaks about that decree. → Read the discussion
9. Al-Tawbah
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some claim that "if any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum" was abrogated by "fight all the polytheists, just as they fight you all" ().
Al-Mizan: The verse is muḥkam and cannot be abrogated, because it embodies an essential, immutable truth of religion affirmed by the Qur'an and Sunnah: there is no punishment before conclusive proof, and one seeking the truth must be granted safety to hear it. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: "Fight all the polytheists" () might be read as abrogating the command to take jizyah from the People of the Book ().
Al-Mizan: () concerns only the idol-worshippers, whom the Qur'an calls mushrikīn, not the People of the Book, so it neither abrogates nor specifies (). Its meaning is akin to (): whatever abrogates or specifies that verse does the same to this one. → Read the discussion
10. Yūnus
() Not abrogated
The claim: Al-Sudayy (al-Durr al-manthūr) says "they will be returned to Allah, their real master" was abrogated by "Allah is the master of the faithful, and the faithless have no master" ().
Al-Mizan: He calls this one of the most foolish explanations of the verse, since the two verses concern two different aspects of the word "master", one outward and the other inward. → Read the discussion
11. Hūd
() Not abrogated
The claim: No claim of abrogation is cited; he remarks on the status of Noah's words "shall we force it upon you while you are averse to it?".
Al-Mizan: It is one of the verses negating compulsion in religion, showing this was among the first ordinances legislated, in the code of Noah, and that it still stands today without ever having been abrogated. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Al-Sudayy (al-Durr al-manthūr) says the verses on the wretched and the felicitous () were abrogated by verses revealed in Medina ( and ) that made their stay in Hell and Paradise eternal.
Al-Mizan: The claim implies the verses meant a temporary stay, which contradicts what is known; abrogation here agrees with neither reason nor revelation, and eternal abiding in both abodes is already established in Meccan chapters such as al-Anʿām and al-Aʿrāf. → Read the discussion
15. Al-Ḥijr
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some claim that "so forbear with a graceful forbearance" was abrogated by the Verse of the Sword.
Al-Mizan: The forbearance this verse prescribes, further explained by "do not direct your eyes longingly", remains applicable even after the Verse of the Sword, so there is no basis for claiming its abrogation. → Read the discussion
16. Al-Naḥl
() Not abrogated
The claim: Qatādah is reported to say that "you take from it intoxicants and good provision" was abrogated by the verse of Sūrah al-Māʾidah prohibiting wine (); others deny abrogation by taking sukr to mean vinegar or non-intoxicating drink.
Al-Mizan: The verse contains no religious ruling; it enumerates the benefits people drew from these fruits as divine blessings, so it can be called neither abrogated nor unabrogated, which invalidates the claim of abrogation. Against the Ḥanafī reading he adds that if the verse expressed favor, it could not later be abrogated by a verse calling the same thing the work of Satan. → Read the discussion
19. Maryam
() Not abrogated
The claim: A tradition from Imam ʿAlī (al-Nuʿmānī) says (), 'there is not one of you but shall come down to it,' was abrogated by ().
Al-Mizan: The relation is not that of general and particular; the first verse is a decided decree of God, and such a decree cannot be rendered null and void or canceled. What the 'abrogation' in the tradition means is deferred to the commentary on (). → Read the discussion
21. Al-Anbiyāʾ
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: A narration from Ibn ʿAbbās says that ("Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the fuel of Hell") was revealed and then abrogated by ("those for whom the good has already gone forth from Us, they shall be kept far off from it").
Al-Mizan: He calls the weakness of this interpretation obvious: if () does anything with respect to (), it would be an exception. → Read the discussion
23. Al-Muʾminūn
() Not abrogated
The claim: The view that temporary marriage (mutʿah) was not a real marriage implies that its permissibility was abrogated by verses such as (also ), and that the Meccan and some Medinite verses prohibiting adultery were in turn abrogated when it was legalized again by the Prophet or by , several times over.
Al-Mizan: He says no Muslim claims these verses were abrogated even once, that such repeated abrogation would be playing with the Book of God, that the tone of the verses prohibiting adultery leaves no room for abrogation, and that a hadith cannot abrogate the Qur'an; temporary marriage is a marriage included in "their mates." → Read the discussion
24. Al-Nūr
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some have said that this verse (the adulterer may marry only an adulteress or a polytheist) was abrogated by ("And marry those among you who are single...").
Al-Mizan: He says the relationship between the two verses is that of a particular rule to a universal one, and stating a universal rule after a particular one does not abrogate it; he calls the verse a decisive (muḥkam) verse that has not been nullified. → Read the discussion
() Undecided
The claim: It could be claimed that this verse was abrogated by ("And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe..."), whose tone may not allow any exception; some exegetes add that marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim was permitted until 6 AH, so this verse may have preceded the prohibition.
Al-Mizan: He presents this only as a possible claim ("perhaps one could claim"), noting the relationship would again be particular to universal, and does not explicitly rule on it, though earlier he calls the verse decisive and not nullified. → Read the discussion
33. Al-Aḥzāb
() Abrogated
The claim: The verse 'the possessors of relationship have the better claim … to inheritance' () abrogated the early system by which a muhājir 'brother' inherited from his anṣār 'brother'; here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: He states that this verse abrogated that early system and initiated inheritance between relatives, then excepted doing good to one's awliyāʾ, which brings it within the scope of the verse of bequest (). → Read the discussion
() Abrogated
The claim: The ʿAllāmah says this verse (on blood relatives being more entitled to one another) abrogates the practice, instituted at the advent of Islam, of the believers inheriting from one another by virtue of emigration and brotherhood in faith; here () is the abrogating text.
Al-Mizan: He states that the verse abrogates the earlier inheritance by emigration and religious brotherhood: blood relatives are more entitled to one another in inheritance than the faithful and the Emigrants who used to inherit by religious brotherhood. → Read the discussion
42. Al-Shūrā
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some narrations claim that the verse of affection () was abrogated by God's saying, "Whatever reward I may have asked you is for your own good. My reward lies only with God" ().
Al-Mizan: He calls this claim strange, after rejecting the reading (attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās) of the verse as respect for the Prophet's kinship with Quraysh as not fitting the verse or its context. → Read the discussion
44. Al-Dukhān
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some interpret "So wait! Indeed they are waiting" as a command to the Prophet to leave them alone that was abrogated by the Sword Verse.
Al-Mizan: He calls this one of the nonsensical interpretations of the verse, which he reads as a corollary of the sūrah: await their punishment, as they too are awaiting it, said in derision of them. → Read the discussion
46. Al-Aḥqāf
() Not abrogated
The claim: Ibn ʿAbbās is reported to have said it was abrogated by the verse in Sūrah al-Fatḥ () on the Prophet's forgiveness.
Al-Mizan: The verse has nothing to do with knowledge the Prophet receives through revelation; it denies knowledge of the unseen from himself, so it does not negate his revealed knowledge of God's forgiveness and needs no abrogating. → Read the discussion
47. Muḥammad
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some claim the words "bind the ties firmly" (with release or ransom) were abrogated by the Sword Verse ().
Al-Mizan: This assumes that a later general verse abrogates an earlier particular one, whereas in fact the general is limited by the particular. → Read the discussion
51. Al-Dhāriyāt
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: A tradition from Imam ʿAlī (al-Nuʿmānī) says (), 'I did not create the jinn and men except that they should worship Me,' was abrogated by (), 'and for this did He create them.'
Al-Mizan: The Imam used 'abrogation' in a wider sense than its terminological meaning: the latter verse mentions a reality that restricts the one described by the former. The first verse affirms worship as the purpose of creation for all the jinn and men; the second affirms another purpose, the mercy that accompanies worship and guidance, which only a selected few reach. → Read the discussion
() Specified, not abrogated
The claim: A narration from Imām al-Ṣādiq (Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī) says that "but they continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has mercy, and that is why He created them" () was revealed after "I did not create the jinn and the humans except that they may worship Me" ().
Al-Mizan: He takes this to mean the later verse serves as a specific verse that 'abrogates' the general meaning of the former, abrogation in the teachings of the Prophet's Household being broader than its conventional sense in legal theory: specific verses overrule the meaning of general ones. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: A narration from Imam al-Ṣādiq implies that "But they continue to differ" () came after and abrogated "I did not create the jinn and the humans except that they may worship Me"; another narration in Tafsīr al-Qummī says this verse is abrogated by it.
Al-Mizan: Naskh here means clarification (naskh al-bayān) and the removal of ambiguity, not abrogation in the technical legal sense; this usage often appears in the Imams' speech. → Read the discussion
56. Al-Wāqiʿah
() Not abrogated
The claim: A narration from Abū Hurayrah (via Ibn Mardawayh) says "a few from the latter ones" () was abrogated by "a multitude from the latter ones" ().
Al-Mizan: He quotes al-Zamakhsharī's rejection (the verses concern different groups, and reports cannot abrogate Qur'anic verses) and rejects the attempt to read the 'abrogation' as of the Companions' understanding, since the wording resists it. → Read the discussion
58. Al-Mujādilah
() Abrogated
The claim: The ʿAllāmah himself states that abrogates the ordinance of requiring charity before private consultation with the Prophet.
Al-Mizan: The Companions forsook private consultation for fear of the expense, and none but ʿAlī acted on it; then descended and canceled the ordinance, its sequence ('So when you did not do it, Allah has turned to you... then keep up prayer') indicating the abrogation. → Read the discussion
60. Al-Mumtaḥanah
() Not abrogated
The claim: It is claimed (e.g., by Qatādah) that is abrogated by "so fight the polytheists wherever you find them" ().
Al-Mizan: covers only non-Muslims under Islamic rule and those with a treaty, not those at war, while concerns polytheists at war; a verse that does not conflict with another in meaning cannot be abrogated by it. → Read the discussion
73. Al-Muzzammil
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some exegetes hold that the command to stand vigil at night () was abrogated by , either by reducing it to a lesser requirement or by replacing the night prayer with reciting what is feasible of the Qur’an; a narration from Imam al-Bāqir, and similar Sunni narrations from Ibn ʿAbbās and others, suggest that the last verse abrogated that obligation.
Al-Mizan: The letter fāʾ in “So recite as much of the Qur’an as is feasible” shows that only lowers the expectation for the believers as a whole; abrogation would make vigil of a third, half or nearly two-thirds of the night an unlawful innovation, whereas the first command still applies to anyone able to fulfill it. → Read the discussion
() Not abrogated
The claim: Some have suggested that the command to keep away from the polytheists in a graceful manner was abrogated by the verses of jihad.
Al-Mizan: He says this view should be disregarded, because the two sets of verses stand in no contradiction to one another. → Read the discussion