Abrogation and abrogated verses according to Sayyid al-Khoei and Allamah Tabatabai: A comparative analytical study

Abstract

This study concludes that the concept of naskh (abrogation) in the Quran is among the most debated topics in Quranic sciences, due to its direct impact on understanding Islamic legal rulings and their evolution over time. The comparative analysis between Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei and Allama Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i reveals a clear methodological divergence in interpreting naskh. While al-Khoei denies the occurrence of abrogation in the Qur’anic text and interprets the verses claimed to be abrogated as cases of specification or gradual legislation, al-Tabataba’i accepts the possibility of naskh under strict conditions, linking it to divine legislative objectives and the development of Islamic society.

The study shows that the two verses concerning fahisha (sexual misconduct) in Surah al-Nisa (verses 15–16) do not conclusively prove abrogation. Al-Khoei views them as independent rulings—confinement as a preventive measure and punishment as disciplinary—without contradiction. In contrast, al-Tabataba’i considers the possibility that the verse of flogging in Surah al-Nur abrogated the earlier ruling, though he refrains from confirming this due to the weakness of supporting narrations.

The findings emphasize that solitary narrations (akhbar al-ahad) are insufficient to establish abrogation and that a precise distinction must be made between true naskh, specification (takhsis), and gradual legislation (tadarruj). The study also highlights the importance of philosophical and rational methodologies in Quranic interpretation, showing that naskh is not merely the cancellation of a ruling but a reflection of divine wisdom and legislative progression—contributing to a deeper and more flexible understanding of the Quranic text.