Are Some Quranic Verses Abrogated?

Against the theory of abrogation (as argued by the likes of jihadists), writes Maulana Muhammad Ali:

That certain verses of the Quran are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the passages of the Quran but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl) – a Makkah revelation – and runs thus: “And when We change a message for a message24 – and Allah knows best what He reveals – they say: Thou art only a forger” (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Quranic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Quran. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses of the Quran but because he claimed that the Quran was a Divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: “Only a mortal teaches him” (16:103). According to them the whole of the Quran, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

                The other verse which is supposed to          lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message We          abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than          it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will          show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations          are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We          believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what          is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain          revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a          better one.

The message was constant from Abraham to Christ. The God of our Fathers has proved faithful.

Mohamed has no authority to be associated with that message much less abrogate it and the Law whatever meaning someone takes the verses.

All past prophets were Jews. Jesus, (not a prophet) was a Jew. In fairly simple terms the OT is a purely Jewish book. Agree or not, Christ fulfilled the Law and established a new and ever lasting Covenant with the people of the Earth as noted in the NT. Almost 2000 years of history/tradition embedded in the first book, and nearly 600 in the second book by the 7th century.

Common sense would conclude the un-named spirit visitation that told an illiterate Arab the 2600 years of history he was ignorant of is washed away is obviously opportunistic.

If it means Medina vs. Mecca verses …no matter…either allah or Mohamed made a mistake disproving the perfect nature of both as they claim. If it means Quran vs. OT/NT…no matter…Mohamed is not a prophet to the message he dismissed, but a man who was duped. I have no doubt he eventually believed what he said, but so did Stalin, Jim Jones, and/or Caligula. All are still wrong.


There is not a single verse in Quran which is/had been abrogated , it is a misunderstanding of the verse which was about as to how other revealed books of the other religions have been secured and protected by GodAllahYHWH in Quran, and that is a fact, in my opinion. This has been explained in other places by Quran also.


My Catholic friends don’t let God speak for Himself. If they would have done it they would find a straight passage from the OTBible on every important issue, if Bible is a living book that answers every rational/reasonable/logical questions, of course we are not discussing here pure Mathematics or Physics, and we are mostly concerned with the every day moral, Spiritual and religious issues, and a religious worthwhile book must resolve such issues, if it is truthful to its purpose. When they don’t get support from the Bible, they think they are wiser than God, so they try filling the void by putting words into God’s mouth first for the Claim and then for the Reason which is usually not found there. One is hence left wondering if the Catholic God is living and All-Wise.


the Catholics you speak of are quoting the Quran and it’s assertion of abrogating verses…No one has claimed this fact
from the Bible but from the Quran…:confused:

saying abrogation refers to previous scriptures is simply covering muhammad’s inconsistency in his message.

Jalalain on 2:106

When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed: And whatever verse (ma is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not [that is only its judgement, but its recital continues]; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ‘[Whatever verse] We command you or Gabriel to abrogate’, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading [of nunsi’ha] is nunsiha, from ‘to forget’: so ‘[Whatever verse We abrogate] or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart’; the response to the conditional sentence [begun with ma] is: We bring [in place] a better, one that is more beneficial for [Our] servants, either because it is easier [to implement] or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting [verses] (the interrogative here is meant as an

the tradition is full of abrogation discussions that has nothing to do with previous scriptures.

So, you’re saying tradition overrides the Qur’an?

no, it explains in in addition to other things.

And if tradition contradicts the Qur’an, tradition wins?

no the Quran comes first… if the hadith is contradictory it is usually rejected. .

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit