ءَايَةٍ

16:102.

Important Words:

ننسخ (We abrogate) is derived from نسخ which has two meanings: (1) he abrogated or annulled, irrespective of the fact whether he brought another in its place or not; (2) he prepared a true copy of a book (Aqrab). It is from the latter sense that the word نسخة or "copy" is derived. From the former sense we derive the words ناسخ i.e. the thing which comes to abrogate another, and منسوخ i.e. the thing which is abrogated.

ننسھا (We cause to be forgotten) is derived from نسی meaning, he forgot, or he failed to preserve in his mind. انسی is the causative form of نسی meaning, he made a person forget a thing (Aqrab).

مثل (like) has three distinct uses: (1) either it is used to denote the like of a thing; (2) or it is used to denote a thing itself; (3) or sometimes it is redundant, giving no special meaning (Aqrab & Misbah).

Commentary:

Some commentators have attempted to infer from this verse that some of the verses of the Quran have been abrogated by others. But this conclusion is grievously erroneous and unwarranted. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the word آیة (Sign) occurring here refers to the Quranic verses. Both in the preceding and the following verses, a reference is made to the People of the Book and their jealousies for the new revelation, which clearly shows that the word آیة spoken of in this verse as being abrogated, refers to the previous revelation. It is pointed out in this verse that the previous Scriptures contained two kinds of commandments. Firstly, those which, owing to the changed conditions of the world and the universality of the new revelation, required abrogation; secondly, those containing eternal truths which did not require abrogation but simply resuscitation so that people might be reminded of the forgotten truth. It was, therefore, necessary (1) to abrogate certain portions and bring in their place new ones, and (2) to restore the lost ones. So, God abrogated some portions of the old Books, replacing them with new and better ones, and at the same time He re-introduced the missing portions by similar ones. This is the only meaning which is consistent with the context and the general spirit of Quranic teaching. In the verse the word ننسخ (We abrogate) relates to the words بخیر (one better) and the words ننسھا (cause to be forgotten) relate to the words بمثلھا (the like thereof) meaning that when God abrogates a certain thing He brings a better thing in its place and when He causes a thing to be forgotten, i.e. when people forget a thing, He brings it over again, i.e. He resuscitates it.

The Jews themselves admit that after the Israelites were carried as captives to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib, 653-654).

The meaning put on the verse by some Translators, viz., that certain verses of the Quran stand abrogated is not only opposed to the words of the Quran and the context of the verse, but is also against reason; nor can any authentic saying of the Holy Prophet be quoted in its favour. On the contrary, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said that the whole of the Quran must be strictly followed and he himself acted upon all its teachings throughout his life. Besides this, the Quran itself testifies to its own purity and integrity. The well-known verse: Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation and most surely We will be its Guardian (15:10) leads to no other conclusion. If the abrogation of any part of the Quran be conceded, the promise about its protection becomes null and void, for in that case it would be impossible to distinguish the abrogated portions from the rest of the Book. Again, there is absolutely no self-contradiction in the Quran, and therefore there is no need of resorting to the theory of abrogation. So-called contradictions only betray lack of deep study on the part of those who proclaim them. When one fails to understand two verses in their true relations, one is inclined to see a contradiction between them and then takes recourse to the convenient theory that one of the two verses must have been abrogated by the other. As soon as they appear to be reconcilable, the abrogation theory becomes gratuitous. This is why those who have upheld the abrogation theory have gradually been compelled to reduce the number of abrogated verses; for whereas the abrogated verses were formerly thought to be as many as 500, they have, by later scholars, been gradually reduced to only five. But even this is incorrect; for there is absolutely no verse in the Quran which is abrogated and we challenge any critic to come forward and prove that any verse of the Holy Book is abrogated. It is a pity that such beautiful significance of the verse under comment should have, as has been briefly portrayed above, become marred through ignorance and thoughtlessness. The verse has a reference to yet another significance as well. The People of the Book have been told that the Quran has come to abrogate all previous Scriptures; for, in view of the changed conditions of mankind, it has brought a new شریعة (Law) which is not only better than all the old codes of Law, but is also meant for all men and all times. An inferior thing with a limited mission must give place to a superior thing with a universal mission. Having explained this point, the Quran proceeds to say that although its teachings are meant for all time, yet a period is destined to come in the life of Islam when, though the letter of the Quran would still be intact, its spirit would be forgotten and lost by Muslims. When such a time comes, God will arrange to resuscitate the Quranic teachings, i.e. bring back "the like thereof" by raising a special Reformer from among Muslims. This prophecy is referred to more pointedly in 62:4 where God promises to raise a Reformer in the likeness of the Holy Prophet in the Latter Days. This Reformer, it is pointed out, would bring back the true faith to the world, even if it had soared away as high as the Pleiades (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). The prophecy has been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

109:3, 7.

6:57; 13:38.

Commentary:

This verse points to the hostility of Jews and Christians not only to Islam but also to one another. The Jews had Jerusalem as their Qiblah (See I. Kings 8:22-30; Dan. 6:10; Ps. 5:7; Jonah, 2:4) while the Samaritans, a disowned section of the Jews, who also followed the Mosaic Law, had adopted a certain mountain in Palestine, named Gerizim, as their Qiblah (John, 4:20 and Commentary on the New Testament by Right Rev. W. Walsham How, D.D., published by Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, under this verse). As regards the early Christians, they followed the Qiblah of the Jews (Acts 3:1; Enc. Brit., 14th edition, v. 676; Jew. Enc. vi. 53) but we learn from authentic sources that when a party of the Christians of Najran paid a visit to Medina to have a discussion with the Holy Prophet on some doctrinal point, they worshipped in the Holy Prophet’s mosque at Medina with their faces turned to the East (Zurqani, iv. 41). Thus the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Christians followed different Qiblahs owing to their mutual jealousy and enmity. In these circumstances it was vain to expect them to follow the Qiblah of the Muslims, and when obsolete faiths refused to follow the true Qiblah, how could a true believer follow a Qiblah that had become obsolete.

The concluding clause speaks of the practice of the People of the Book as vain "desires," not because they were not originally based on revelation but because they were opposed to the new revelation that had appointed the Ka‘bah as Qiblah. He who insists on sticking to an order that is no longer in force, really follows naught but his own desire.

The words, then thou shalt surely be of the transgressors, do not evidently refer to the Holy Prophet, because, (1) he could in no circumstances go against Allah’s commandment, and (2) the foregoing part of this very verse says about him, nor wouldst thou follow their Qiblah, and (3) it is clearly stated in the preceding verse that he loved to turn his face towards the Ka‘bah and eagerly awaited a divine commandment to that effect. It is, therefore, unthinkable that the Prophet could forsake the Qiblah of his own liking. The words obviously refer, as supported by the rules of the Arabic language as well as the usage of the Quran, either to the reader in general or to every individual Muslim who followed the Holy Prophet.

17:102; 28:37.

Commentary:

The preceding verses referred to those weak in faith who had not yet "come into submission wholly" (2:209). The position of these people was that they had received a favour of God but practically they sought to "change" it. They wished to be known as Muslims and yet to be free to live as they liked. This was exactly what the Israelites had done before. So the Quran fittingly turns here to the story of the children of Israel who afforded an object-lesson for Muslims. The Holy Prophet and, for that matter, every reader of the Quran is asked to enquire of the descendants of Israel how many and how varied were the Signs which God had bestowed upon them as a favour and how persistent and impudent was their rejection of His Messengers and their disregard of His teachings.

The expression, whoso changes the gift of God, appears to be rather peculiar; but really the word یبدل (changes) gives a very interesting meaning. For believers it means, accepting the teaching of a Prophet in theory but rejecting it in practice, as unfortunately is very often the case with the weak in faith. They receive a thing as a gift or blessing, but by abstaining from acting upon it, they incur the displeasure of God, thus practically "changing" a favour into a disfavour.

For disbelievers the expression means converting a مبشر Prophet into a منذر Prophet. The Quran speaks of the Prophets of God as a نعمة i.e. a favour or gift (5:21) and it further holds that the mission of every Prophet is twofold—he is a مبشر or bearer of glad tidings for those who accept him, and he is a منذر or warner of coming punishment for those who reject him (18:57). Now when God sends a Prophet, He wishes the people to accept him as a bearer of glad tidings only, and it is the people themselves who reverse the position by rejecting him. In this way the people, as it were, "change" the مبشر Prophet into the منذر Prophet.

Again, for Israelites or Jews the expression, whoso changes the gift of Allah, may mean that though they knew that their Scriptures embodied the word of God which was a favour and a blessing, yet they had the audacity to interfere with it in order to meet their own ends (5:14), thus "changing" the very substance of God’s favour.

The expression may have yet another meaning. The شریعة or Law being meant as a guidance, is a mercy or a blessing of God (5:4 & 6:155, 156). But Christians, who are an offshoot of the Jews have "changed" it into a curse (Gal. 3:13).

The expression "gift of God" may refer to the manifold and multifarious favours which God had bestowed upon the Israelites in the form of Prophets and their noble teachings. But they "changed" the gift of God by rejecting the Prophets and disobeying their teachings. The expression may also refer to the Holy Prophet and the religion brought by him; they are certainly the greatest gifts of God for mankind, and whoever rejects Islam either by disbelieving or disobeying its teachings, deserves God’s severest punishment. In either case, the verse also warns hypocrites and those weak of faith among Muslims that if they accepted the Holy Prophet outwardly but rejected him in their heart or if they accepted his teachings as being from God but did not act upon them, they would be "changing" the gift of God and would make themselves liable to severe punishment.

21:3; 26:6; 36:47.

Commentary:

An important evidence of the knowledge and power of God are the prophecies which He reveals to His Messengers and the aid and help which He vouchsafes them against overwhelming odds. These are called signs here. Thus, in order to prove the perfect knowledge and power of God, the verse refers to the powerful signs which God was showing to demonstrate the truth of the Holy Prophet and the wonderful way in which He was helping him.

10:43; 17:48.

17:47; 41:6.

Commentary:

For an explanation of "veils" and "deafness", see 2:8.

What the Quran calls "signs" are described by disbelievers as mere "fables of the ancients," which saying of theirs is condemned by God. This shows that in the sight of God the stories of past Prophets and past nations given in the Quran are not meant as "tales" or "stories" but as "signs", being prophecies of future events which, when fulfilled, will serve as "signs".

10:79.

Commentary:

Pharaoh’s people proudly said to Moses that however great and powerful the signs he might show, they would never submit to him and would never allow the Israelites to go with him.

6:26.

Commentary:

This verse explains the true significance of the word دار (abode) occurring in the sentence, I shall show you the abode of the transgressors, contained in the preceding verse.

10:89.

Commentary:

This verse shows that the signs of God do not benefit those who have no desire to benefit by them. They treat even the greatest of signs as mere fraud. Hence the assertion of disbelievers made in the time of every Prophet that no sign has been shown to them is no evidence of the absence of any sign. One should not be misled by such baseless assertions but should ponder over the claims of a Prophet independently and form one’s own judgement about them. One should judge the signs of the Prophet according to the criteria by which Divine Signs are judged.

21:33; 23:67.

Commentary:

The verse points to a fundamental difference between the attitude of a believer and a disbeliever. Whereas the former goes about with his eyes open and is ready to grasp the slightest divine hint, the latter behaves like a blind man, refusing to benefit even from clear and manifest signs. Both of them are endowed with identical faculties and natural powers, but whereas the believer makes proper use of them, the disbeliever does not.

2:107.

Commentary:

Before proceeding to explain this verse it is necessary to understand the real meaning of the word ایة which, primarily means "a sign". Unless there is something in the context to show that a word is taken in any of its secondary senses, we must take it in its primary sense. The verses of the Quran are called ایات (signs) because every one of them constitutes a sign of guidance. The preceding verses spoke of the punishments which were in store for disbelievers. This fact lends support to the view that the word ایة is here used in its original sense, viz. in the sense of a sign. Now the fulfilment of the prophecies of punishment depends on the attitude of those concerning whom they are made. If they are obstinate and persist in rejecting the signs of God, the threatened punishment overtakes them. But if they show repentance it is averted, deferred or delayed, for God is Merciful and His attribute of Mercy predominates over all His other attributes. The case of the people of Jonah is a well-known instance for understanding the nature and purpose of the prophecies of punishment. Jonah predicted destruction of the people of Nineveh, but they repented and renounced their evil ways. So God had mercy on them and averted the impending punishment (10:99), and in place of the sign of punishment, He showed a sign of mercy. On such occasions, i.e. when God averts or delays a predicted punishment in consonance with His attribute of Mercy, the sons of darkness accuse their Prophet of falsehood and declare that his prophecy has not been fulfilled. These critics conveniently ignore the fact that there is a vast difference between a promise and a threat. If a person does not keep his promise, he is rightly regarded as guilty of breach of a solemn undertaking but if he does not carry into actual effect his threat, he cannot be accused of any breach of promise. On the contrary, it will be regarded as an act of generosity and kindness on his part not to have done so. According to Arabic idiom also, whereas the non-fulfilment of a promise is called a breach of promise, the non-fulfilment of threat is regarded as an act of generosity. The Arabs say الخلف فی الوعد عند العرب کذب وفی الوعید کرم i.e. the breach of promise is a lie but the non-fulfilment of a threat is an act of generosity. God is Merciful, and if a person repents, His Mercy demands that punishment should be averted from him, and in such a case it will be foolish to accuse the Prophet of falsehood. The words, and Allah knows best what He reveals, mean that God knows best what kind of sign is required to be shown under particular circumstances. He shows His signs according to the requirements of the time. If He sees that disbelievers have given up their evil course and are penitent, He refrains from punishing them and changes the form of the sign. In that case the threat of punishment is not carried out, and under such circumstances it is foolish to accuse the Prophet of falsehood. So the expression واذا بدلنا ایة مکان ایة would mean, When We avert or delay punishment on account of a change for the better on the part of those who are threatened with such punishment…

Taking the word ایة in the sense of Law, this expression would mean that when in certain matters the Law of Islam is found to differ from Laws previously revealed, disbelievers regard it as evidence of the Quran’s being a forgery. This meaning is in perfect harmony with the context. It is argued that when the Quran declares previous Laws to have been revealed by God, it should not have differed from them. But the admission that previous Laws have been revealed by God does not mean that none of their ordinances could be replaced by new ordinances. According to the Quran, the previous Laws were meant for particular peoples and for particular times. They were suited only to the requirements of the peoples for whom they were revealed. The Quran, on the other hand, constitutes a universal Law, meant for all peoples and all times, and therefore if it is found to contain certain teachings which differ from the teachings of previously revealed Scriptures, that is no evidence of the Quran’s being a forgery. On the other hand, it is but natural and necessary that the perfect and universal Law—the Quran—should differ in some of its ordinances from temporary and provisional Laws previously revealed.

It must be clearly understood that the verse contains no reference to the abrogation of any of the verses of the Quran. The Holy Prophet has not been reported to have ever declared any verse of the Quran to have been abrogated by another verse. Nor are there any verses in the Quran which clash with other parts of the Book and which may therefore have to be regarded as abrogated. All parts of the Quran support and corroborate one another. Moreover, there is nothing in the context to suggest any reference to the abrogation theory.

It is also worth remembering that the passage under comment was revealed in Mecca. In fact, the whole Surah belongs to the Meccan period. And the Surahs of the Meccan period deal with teachings pertaining to morals and matters of belief, and about these there can be no question of abrogation or revocation.