Book Review
This is a book review of the book ‘The Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law’ which is authored by Louay Fatohi. The book was published by Routledge, in 2013.
Overview
Louay Fatohi is an expert in Islamic Studies, who has published several books based on Islam. This book is considered to be one of the most important books, as it has highlighted many important issues about the Abrogation in the Quran and the Sunnah by evaluating them in light of the view of the scholars. While approaching the subject of abrogation, its existence cannot be denied in the Quran due to the complexities in the interpretation of the Quranic verses, all of the events that occurred in Islamic history, and the authenticity of the Hadiths. However, Fatohi has put in all his efforts to refute the abrogation of Quran.
In chapter one (p12-31), the author has well introduced the subject of abrogation in the Quran and the Sunnah, by offering the history of the concept’s origin in Quran. At first, he has given the meaning of Naskh in the Arabic language. According to the Arabic dictionary, Fatohi offers three different interpretations in order to give a clear idea of the meaning of Naskh. Next, he introduced the gist of Naskh’s theory in the Quran and the Sunnah, by presenting the Quranic verses and Hadiths. Interestingly, he presents all his evidence based on the history of abrogation by scholars in a chronological manner.
In addition, Fathi has given the views of different scholars about the concept of abrogation and its three modes. While addressing the subject, Fatohi revisited the academic sources to authenticate the matter. For example, when Safi’s said the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Quran, Fatohi revisited Safi’i’s book and he found that Safi’i had addressed the concept of abrogation Quran from the lens of the Sunnah.
Aside from Safi’I, another great scholar that Fatohi has addressed in his book is Abu ‘Ubaid al-Qasim. He has compared their views about abrogation by conducting an in-depth analysis. Fatohi then shifted to another significant aspect that focuses on those scholars who denied the existence of abrogation. Fatohi stated in his book that a minority of scholars had denied the abrogation of the Quran. He also highlighted the scholars of Shia and referred to Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Khui who had denied the abrogation of Quran.
In Chapter 2 (p32-36), Fatohi referred to the existence of abrogation in Ibrahimic religion -Judaism, and Christianity- based on the Quranic verses. However, he has concluded that there is no evidence of having the abrogation as Islamic scholars have proclaimed.
In Chapter 3 (p37-54): Fatohi claimed that scholars produced the abrogation, and he said, “The Quran does not contain a single verse explicitly stating that any verse was abrogated by another! Similarly, there is no statement attributed to the Prophet, that confirms that a verse was abrogated by Quranic or no-Quranic revelation.” He has also asserted that exegetes of the Quran claimed abrogation. However, the fact is that there is evidence that contradicts his statement.
The book shows that Fatohi was quite successful in refuting the abrogation of some of the verses, which are found in the Tafsir, such as the story of Gharaniq. He has also illustrated the evidence of scholars in order to ascertain that story of Gharaniq is simply a myth. In addition, Fatohi has referred to four scholars who denied the abrogation and supported his argument by providing evidence.
In chapter 4 (p55-73), Fatohi investigated two verses that are linked to the abrogation of the Quran. Although he has referred to the views of many scholars it is evident that Fatohi negated their views regarding abrogation in Quran. However, he could not offer robust evidence for his hypotheses. Fatohi’s evidence relied on the meaning of the word ‘Naskh’ which has diverse meanings in the Quran. Moreover, he asserted that the word of ‘Aya’, which means verse, has varying meanings too, such as the ‘divine song’, ‘verse’, ‘miracle’ etc. At the end of the chapter, Fatohi alleged that the word Aya in verse 2.106 means the divine song rather than the verse. He claims that the existence of abrogation can be found in Hadith.
In chapter 5 (p73-91), Fatohi highlights an interesting issue that many scholars hold different views regarding the number of verses that have been abrogated. He presents the views of all scholars in a proper manner. In addition, Fatohi has presented a table, which contains the number of verses that were abrogated, and the chapters, which contain the abrogation. Therefore, it shows that throughout history there were always disagreements between scholars.
In chapter 6 (p92-113), Fatohi claimed that he would have proved the rejection of the two modes of abrogation in the Quran since his analysis is compatible with Burton’s conclusion. Furthermore, he has highlighted several verses in Quran to prove that they have not been abrogated. Fatohi’s attempts are quite interesting and need further investigation of those verses, which are related to ‘The Night Prayer, Fighting Fewer Enemies, and Fasting Penance. He could not prove whether the forbidden intoxicants verse 5.91 is an abrogation of verse 4.43, which indicates that Muslims avoid intoxicants while they are offering prayers. He has tried to distinguish the words Sukara in verse 4.43 and intoxicants in verse 5.91, in order to prove that intoxicants do not abrogate the word Sukara. However, the word in the Arabic language does imply that it means intoxicant. Therefore, the concepts of verses are related to each other and the scholars point out that verse 5.91 abrogates verse 4.43.
In chapter 7 (p114-121), Fatohi devoted a whole chapter to proving that the ‘verse of the Sword’ does not abrogate the peaceful verses. He alleged that this verse has been written specifically for a certain time and group. However, scholars believe this verse is a generalization and not specified for a certain time period. I believe if we consider this verse was only for a specific time then in light of this view, it can be claimed that the verses for the time of the Prophet are not valid today. Secondly, if the verse of the sword is not valid nowadays, it means technically, there is abrogation in Quran and the verse of the Sword was abrogated over the years. In spite of this, the scholars provide evidence of abrogation of the ‘Verse of the Sword’. Yet, Fatohi still believes that this verse is not related to the abrogation in the Quran.
In chapter 8 (p122-128), Fatohi clarified the confusion among the majority of the people that did not recognize the difference between Mushaf and the Quran. Based on view of Burton he gave expanded on the source of confusion and stated, “Quran refers to the revelation that was read to Prophet Muhammad whereas the term Mushaf denotes the written form of that revelation.”
In chapter 9 (p129-137), Fatohi believes that he could correct the concept of the clause of verse 2.106 ‘cause to be forgotten’ which the scholars have misunderstood. His view corresponds to the view of the Sufi Shaikh Junaid al-Baghdadi who believed that the meaning of ‘forgotten’ in this clause means that the Prophet forgot to apply the Quran and not the verse Quran. Aside from this, Fatohi has referred to some Hadith, whose references seem to be incorrect. For example, he numbered the Hadith of Al-Bukhari, 4849 but in fact, the number is 4751. I have found two other Hadith with No. 4750 & No.4750, which are similar to his Hadith, and the references are not compatible with the number that Fatohi has mentioned. Also, I could not find the numbers of the two Hadith of Musnad Ahmad which are numbered ‘15365’ and ‘21140’.
In Chapter 10 (p138-155), Fatohi illustrated a few verses that scholars have claimed to be abrogated. He investigated those verses and asserted that they are not associated with any command or prohibition. In addition to this, he believed the Hadith that implies that those verses are fabricated. In addition, he has claimed that those verses were lost and have nothing to do with abrogation.
In chapter 11 (p156-199), Fatohi dedicated a long chapter to resolving the matter of the stoning of the adulterers in Islam by examining all Hadith, which relate to ‘The Verse of Stoning’. Fatohi challenged the scholars who believe in stoning adulterers by providing an analysis of two aspects. The first aspect focuses on the terminology, which is used in the verse of stoning. While the second aspect focuses on finding different versions of the wording of this verse in different Hadith with different terminologies. For example, the word Shikh and Shikha have different meanings according to scholars. In addition, the term Shikh and Shikha in Quran mean old man and old woman. While in the verse of stoning some scholars stated that these words meant a married Muslim woman and married Muslim man, and others scholars interpreted the words to mean non-virgin.
Chapter 12 (p200-206), this chapter is devoted to the abrogation of the verse ‘Ten-Suckling’ by the ‘Five-Suckling’ verse. Fatohi examined all Hadith regarding the mentioned verses, and he concluded that the verses are no more than a fabrication, illogical, and the work of imagination. However, the fact is, if it is illogical to the modern day then it does not imply that the event did not happen historically.
In chapters 13-14 (p207-237): Fatohi has continued with the subject of abrogation of the Sunnah and the Quran as he has mentioned in previous chapters. He goes through all the details from previous chapters and highlights them in chapter 13 while in chapter 14 he has shed light on Islamic law in general.
Chapter 15 (p238-246), offers a conclusion of Fatohi’s view regarding the abrogation in the Quran. He stated that the misunderstanding related to the meaning of Nasikh by scholars, led to the creation of the abrogation law that defended the Quran against the critics, as they believe there is a contradiction in the verses of the Quran. In addition, Fatohi calculated all missing verses, which are 729 verses. The number of forgotten verses amounts to 10.5% of the Quran. He also believes that in the earlier 2nd century the number of Hadith were introduced regarding the abrogation that led to the creation of verses, such as the verse Adultery that focused on stoning the adulterers.
He believes that scholars link only the word Nasikh in verse 2.106 and the replacement word in verse 16.101 to the abrogation of Quran while both terms do not indicate any abrogation. In the end, Fatohi concluded his views that abrogation has no link to Quran and it is baseless and developed by scholars in order to decrease the perceived contradiction between Quranic verses.
Conclusion
Fatohi’s book is academically credible, as the author has carried out an in-depth analysis based on the topic of abrogation. Even though the topic at hand is complex in nature, the author has done an excellent job at reforming some aspects, which were highlighted by many critics. In addition, he tried to correct many mistakes in the interpretation of verses by different scholars. The author well presented the sources; however, there were some mistakes such as the wrong references to Hadith. While analyzing his work, it is evident that Fatohi is an Islamic scholar and therefore, the author does not intend on being blasphemous as it can be seen from his work that he has validated his argument by taking references from the Quran. Despite some disagreements with his views and his analysis, the book is enriched with information for those readers who want to know about the abrogation in Quran and Sunnah.
