Defending Islam

Why are Some Verses Abrogated?

Why are Some Verses Abrogated?

Definition and Quranic Basis of Naskh (Abrogation)

In Islamic terminology, naskh refers to the abrogation or repeal of an earlier religious ruling by a later one. Imam al-Juwayni (11th century) defined it as “an address indicating the lifting of a ruling established by a previous address, without which it would remain in effect.” In simple terms, naskh means that a later revealed verse or ruling replaces an earlier one, when the two cannot be reconciled. The concept is explicitly hinted in the Quran itself. Allah says: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it…” , and “When We replace one verse in place of another – and Allah knows best what He reveals – they say, ‘You have made it up.’ But most of them do not understand.” These verses established for Muslims that God may reveal verses which supersede earlier injunctions for the greater good or divine wisdom.

Early Muslim scholars noted that naskh applies only to commands, prohibitions, and legal instructions, not to factual stories or historical narratives . As Ibn Kathir (d. 1373) explains in his commentary, abrogation occurs in “commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo nasakh.” The classical scholars also distinguished naskh from mere clarification or specification of a general rule. Sometimes the early generations used the term “abrogation” loosely to refer to any modification or exception to a rule, even if the original rule wasn’t completely nullified . Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273) notes that “the predecessors would intend specification by the word abrogation, figuratively and metaphorically,” meaning a general rule could be “abrogated” in part by exceptions without being totally canceled. Later scholars reserved naskh for its narrower sense of full repeal or replacement of a law, while using terms like takhsis (specification) for partial modifications.

Examples of Abrogated Verses in the Quran

1. Change in the Qibla (Direction of Prayer)

Abrogated Verse:

“The foolish among the people will say, 'What has turned them away from their Qibla, which they used to face?'” (Quran 2:142)

Abrogating Verse:

“So turn your face toward the Sacred Mosque (Kaaba)…” (Quran 2:144)

Initially, Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem. Later, Allah changed the direction of prayer towards the Kaaba in Mecca, symbolizing Islam's distinct identity and emphasizing unity among believers.

Why was it abrogated?

This shift represented independence from previous religious traditions, highlighting Islam's unique identity and uniting Muslims globally toward one spiritual center.

2. Prohibition of Alcohol

Abrogated Verse:

“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying.” (Quran 4:43)

Abrogating Verse:

“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone altars, and divining arrows are defilement from Satan's work, so avoid them that you may be successful.” (Quran 5:90)

Initially, alcohol was gradually discouraged. Eventually, total prohibition was established.

Why was it abrogated?

This gradual approach helped believers overcome addiction, making adherence easier and reflecting Allah’s mercy.

3. Ruling on Retaliation (Qisas)

Abrogated Verse:

“Prescribed for you is legal retribution (qisas) for those murdered—the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female...” (Quran 2:178)

Abrogating Verse:

“But if the killer is forgiven by the family of the victim, then blood money should be decided and paid with fairness.” (Quran 2:179)

Originally, retaliation was strict, but later an option of forgiveness with blood money was permitted.

Why was it abrogated?

It promotes forgiveness and reconciliation, fostering social harmony and compassion.

3. Waiting Period for Widows (`Iddah)

Abrogated Verse:

“Those who die leaving widows should provide a year’s maintenance without forcing them out...” (Quran 2:240)

Abrogating Verse:

“And those who are taken in death among you and leave wives behind—they shall wait four months and ten days.” (Quran 2:234)

The waiting period for widows was clearly defined, shortening the initial lengthy mourning period.

Why was it abrogated?

This clarified legal obligations, providing fairness and facilitating women’s remarriage and welfare.

3. Command to Engage in Jihad

Abrogated Verse:

“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress...” (Quran 2:190)

Abrogating Verse:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush...” (Quran 9:5)

Initially, fighting was limited strictly to defensive scenarios. Later, commands became assertive in response to aggression.

Why was it abrogated?

To clearly establish boundaries and proactively secure the Muslim community after repeated aggression from opponents.

4. Punishment for Adultery

Abrogated Verse:

“And those who commit unlawful intercourse among your women—confine them to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them another way.” (Quran 4:15)

Abrogating Verse:

“The woman or man found guilty of unlawful intercourse—lash each one of them with a hundred lashes...” (Quran 24:2)

Initially, the punishment was indefinite confinement; later, a clearer, definitive punishment was established.

Why was it abrogated?

To create a more uniform, public, and enforceable legal penalty rather than indefinite confinement.

5. Distribution of War Booty

Abrogated Verse:

“They ask you about the spoils of war. Say, 'The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger...'” (Quran 8:1)

Abrogating Verse:

“Know that anything you obtain of war booty—for Allah is one-fifth of it, and for the Messenger, near relatives, orphans, needy, and travelers...” (Quran 8:41)

Initially, distribution was general. Later, clear guidelines specified the recipients.

Why was it abrogated?

To establish fair and detailed social justice mechanisms, ensuring support for vulnerable groups.

6. Punishment for Theft

Abrogated Verse:

“As for the thief, male and female, amputate their hands as recompense and deterrent...” (Quran 5:38)

Abrogating Verse:

“But whoever repents after wrongdoing and reforms, indeed Allah will turn to him in forgiveness.” (Quran 5:39)

The severe punishment was given nuance by adding repentance and reform as mitigating factors.

Why was it abrogated?

To emphasize mercy alongside justice, giving room for forgiveness and reform, demonstrating Allah’s compassion toward sincere repentance.

These examples collectively illustrate that abrogation demonstrates divine mercy, gradual progression of laws, and contextual wisdom, each designed to serve humanity’s best interests at every stage of spiritual and social development.

Abrogation in the Four Schools of Law

All four major schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) accept the principle of abrogation of rulings in the Quran and Sunnah as part of Islamic legal theory . Classical jurists taught that one Quranic verse may revoke the legal ruling of another verse, and likewise a Prophetic teaching (hadith) could be abrogated by later revelation. They differed slightly on technical points – for example, whether a Prophetic Sunnah can abrogate a Quranic verse. The majority (including Shafi’i and many Maliki/Hanbali scholars) held that only Quran can abrogate Quran, and similarly a Sunnah can only be abrogated by another authentic Sunnah, to preserve the hierarchy of revelation . In sum, naskh became an established doctrine in jurisprudence by the 9th century, taught in Quranic sciences and usul al-fiqh textbooks of every madhhab.

Classical Scholarly Commentary on Naskh

Al-Tabari (d. 923)

Imam al-Tabari, one of the earliest and most authoritative exegetes, addressed naskh while commenting on relevant Quranic verses. He affirmed abrogation as a reality in revelation and defended it against skeptics. For instance, some early critics (like certain Jewish contemporaries of the Prophet) objected that if one law replaced another, it implied inconsistency. Al-Tabari refuted this by pointing out that Allah has full sovereignty to change commands in accordance with His wisdom . He notes that God “forbids what He wills, abrogates what He wills, upholds what He wills… The sound mind does not deny that there could be naskh in Allah’s commandments, for He decides what He wills, just as He does what He wills.” In his commentary on Quran 2:106, Tabari mentions the disbelievers’ taunt – “one day Muhammad enjoins something, the next day he forbids it” – and explains that Allah revealed this verse to clarify that replacing a rule with another is not capricious but purposeful . God “knows best what He reveals” and always “brings forth one better or equal to it” in benefit . Tabari and other scholars often cited previous scriptures to illustrate that abrogation is not a flaw but part of divine legislation. He reminds readers that even in the Torah and Gospel, laws changed over time by God’s command – for example, what was permitted for Adam or Noah was later forbidden in the Law of Moses . Thus, Muslims should not be surprised that the Quran also contains progressive revelations .

Importantly, Al-Tabari was cautious not to overextend abrogation. He would reject claims of abrogation if a reasonable harmonization or contextualization existed. For example, regarding the verses that urge kindness and justice toward non-Muslims who are peaceful (Quran 60:8-9), some held these were “abrogated” by later verses about fighting. Al-Tabari disagreed, saying the correct view is that 60:8 remains in force (muhkam) for all non-aggressors, regardless of their faith . He explains that Allah “generalized in His saying ‘those who do not fight you… and do not expel you’ to include all who can be described that way, and He did not restrict it… It does not mean (what) those who say it was abrogated (claim).” He supports this with the report of Asma’ bint Abi Bakr, who was kind to her idolatrous mother during a truce (with the Prophet’s permission), after which “Allah revealed 60:8 in response”, affirming kindness to peaceful non-Muslims . Thus, Tabari recognized genuine cases of naskh but also stressed that not every difficult or seemingly contradictory verse is abrogated – sometimes verses have different scopes and contexts rather than one canceling the other.

Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273)

Imam Al-Qurtubi, a great Maliki jurist-exegete, provided detailed discussion of abrogation in his Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an. He concurred with earlier scholars that naskh is a valid and necessary tool to understand the Quran’s legal discourse. Qurtubi highlighted that one must carefully distinguish literal abrogation from figurative usage. He notes that the early authorities would sometimes say “This verse is abrogated by that verse” when they really meant the later verse qualified or narrowed the earlier one . For example, a general permissibility might be “abrogated” by a later exception or condition – what Qurtubi calls a “figurative abrogation” (really a form of specification) . Recognizing this helps avoid counting too many verses as fully canceled.

Qurtubi also documented scholarly disagreements on which verses were abrogated, often siding with the view that fewer verses are abrogated than early compilations suggested. In the case of the so-called “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) and whether it overrides peaceful verses, Qurtubi cites the practice of early Muslims to show the tolerant verses still apply. He relates, for instance, that “the majority of interpreters say verse 60:8 is operative (muhkamah)”, not abrogated . He even tells a story of a judge in Muslim Spain who was friendly to a Christian guest and was criticized; the judge recited Quran 60:8-9 to the critics, implying these verses remain authoritative in commanding fairness to noncombatants . In essence, Al-Qurtubi acknowledged abrogation but urged caution and precision: only clear, established cases (through evidence or consensus) should be deemed abrogated, while many other apparent tensions in the text can be reconciled by context, specificity, or circumstance. He, like others, upheld that Allah’s replacement of laws is always for a equal or greater good, even if human minds don’t immediately grasp the wisdom .

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373)

The Shafi’i scholar Ibn Kathir, in his famous Tafsir, similarly affirms the concept of naskh and provides classical explanations for it. In commentary on Quran 2:106, Ibn Kathir gathers the statements of earlier authorities on the meaning of “Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten…”. He reports that naskh was understood as “removing the commandment and replacing it by another”, in essence erasing or lifting a prior ruling and instituting a new one . This can occur in different forms: sometimes both the words and the ruling of a verse are removed from practice (for example, he cites the former Quranic verse about stoning adulterers, the wording of which was no longer recited, and its ruling superseded by other verses and hadith) . Other times, the text of the verse remains in the Quran but its legal ruling is no longer applicable because a later verse has replaced it . Regardless of form, the underlying principle is that God may repeal an earlier command—whether to make something previously allowed into something prohibited, or vice versa .

Ibn Kathir addresses why Allah would do this. He emphasizes Allah’s absolute authority and wisdom in legislation: “Allah has full authority to command the creation as He wills… forbidding them from what He wills, abrogating what He wills, upholding what He wills… He decides what He wills, just as He does what He wills.” What changed was not God’s knowledge (for He is all-knowing), but the circumstances of the people or the stage of moral development they had reached. Ibn Kathir points out that abrogation is often a means to gradually introduce law or to test obedience. He gives the famous example of the prohibition of alcohol. Early in Islam, alcohol was not immediately banned; a verse first discouraged it (saying its sin is greater than its benefit, 2:219), which “prepared the way for the decisive unlawfulness of wine, as it is not explicit but rather implied” . Later, a stricter verse prohibited approaching prayer while intoxicated, and finally a verse came in Madinah with a total prohibition (5:90). Ibn Kathir notes each stage abrogated the prior more lenient rule step by step . This gradual naskh allowed believers to wean off a deeply ingrained habit, illustrating divine wisdom. He quotes the early scholar Mujahid: “They were prohibited from praying while intoxicated, then it was abrogated by the forbiddance of wine.” The Companion Aisha (ra) famously remarked that if the very first commandment had been “don’t drink,” people might not have been ready to obey – so instead faith was nurtured first . Ibn Kathir and others see in this a merciful progression: God legislates according to what “is better for the people to benefit them at the time of each revelation.” Thus, abrogation served to “bring a better one or similar” – meaning a rule better suited for the community’s maturity, or at least equal in goodness – never to replace good with bad .

Ibn Kathir also addresses the allegation that abrogation implies divine inconsistency. He counters that all of Allah’s revelations – both the earlier and the later ruling – are good and true, but each in its appropriate context . “What has been abrogated is good as much as what abrogated it,” and Allah “makes these changes for the good of people”, knowing what each time and situation requires . To further justify naskh, Ibn Kathir (like Tabari) reminds readers that abrogation occurred in earlier scriptures which the People of the Book acknowledge. For example, in the Bible, God gave different dietary laws to Noah, then later to Moses; or commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, then rescinded it at the last moment as a test . If God could change laws before, He can certainly do so in the Quran. Thus, Ibn Kathir views naskh as a demonstration of Allah’s wisdom, mercy, and pedagogical method in guiding humanity, not as a flaw. It ensures the Shari’ah remains suited to the Muslim community’s growth and circumstances, while ultimately moving toward the ideal laws willed by God.

Notably, Ibn Kathir did not consider abrogation rampant or arbitrary. Like other classical scholars, he limited it to strong evidence. He maintained, for example, that Quranic verses encouraging peace and truces in war-time were not nullified by later verses. Commenting on “If they incline to peace, then incline to it” (8:61), Ibn Kathir insists “it is not invalidated, nor abrogated, nor restricted,” since the Prophet ﷺ himself entered into peace treaties (like Hudaybiyyah) under that verse’s guidance . In fact, Ibn Kathir cites this as the majority view of jurists (Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi’i) that “a peace treaty is permissible if the leader sees benefit in it.” Thus, the verse remains a precedent limiting unconditional warfare. This illustrates how Ibn Kathir, while recognizing true cases of naskh, also upheld many verses as still applicable in their contexts – abrogation was not to be hastily multiplied beyond clear cases.

Al-Shawkani (d. 1839)

Al-Shawkani, a Yemeni scholar and jurist who authored works in tafsir and usul, addressed naskh in his writings with an eye toward clarifying misconceptions. In his view, the reality of abrogation was unquestionable among scholars. He states unequivocally: “Abrogation is rationally acceptable, and has occurred in reality with no dispute in this between the Muslims, except what was narrated from Abu Muslim al-Asfahani.” Abu Muslim al-Isfahani was a solitary Mu’tazili exegete who reportedly denied any actual abrogation in the Quran (while admitting it was theoretically possible). Shawkani regards this as an outlier view that does not detract from the consensus. He comments that if Abu Muslim truly held that view, “it would demonstrate that he is ignorant of this Shari’ah in an outrageous way… such a dispute (from someone like him) is not considered.” In other words, virtually all scholars of stature accepted that some verses did abrogate others.

In usul al-fiqh, Shawkani lists rational justifications for why abrogation must sometimes occur. He notes that Islamic rulings are aimed at benefits (masalih) for people, and “these benefits can change, such that something might be beneficial at one time, but not at another.” Therefore, God in His wisdom may alter a law to suit changed circumstances or to bring about a greater benefit later on. There is nothing in reason that prevents changing a ruling over time . Shawkani also echoes the point that the Islamic law superseded previous laws – a fact any Muslim accepts – and thus one should equally accept the possibility of temporary laws within Islam itself . In sum, “different situations call for different rules”, and Allah legislates accordingly. This concept is “obvious enough if one thinks about it,” Shawkani observes, yet it was a common line of attack by critics who accused Islam of inconsistency .

Al-Shawkani’s own Quran commentary and legal writings often seek to moderate the over-counting of abrogated verses. By his era, many scholars had already drastically reduced the number of supposed abrogations. (For example, the medieval Shafi’i scholar Al-Suyuti had listed 19 abrogated verses, whereas Shah Wali Allah of Delhi (18th century) agreed only about 5 of those were genuine .) Shawkani tended to scrutinize each alleged case with the question: Is a total abrogation necessary here, or can the verses be contextualized and reconciled? His stance generally aligned with the “mainstream understanding” that each Quranic rule has its proper application and context, rather than later verses canceling earlier ones across the board. For instance, verses preaching patience and forgiveness remain valid in situations where oppression can be safely pardoned, while verses commanding fighting apply in situations of defensive war – they address different circumstances . This nuanced approach, which Shawkani and others articulated, helped refute the claim that the Quran’s teachings are internally inconsistent. Instead, it showed the Quran presents a “wise and extremely precise legislation that promotes the interest of those under it” by tailoring commands to conditions .

In summary, classical scholars unanimously upheld the concept of abrogation as a tool to interpret Quranic law, but they also set rigorous conditions for its application. They documented specific instances (e.g. the change of qibla direction , adjustments in inheritance and waiting periods , the stages of the alcohol prohibition , etc.) and usually required clear evidence (such as a later Quran verse or authentic hadith) to establish that one ruling truly replaced another. By the late classical period, scholars like Suyuti identified only a few dozen verses at most that were mansukh (abrogated) , and many of those cases are agreed upon – for example, the one-year maintenance for widows (2:240) was supplanted by the verse specifying a four-month-ten-day waiting period (2:234) , or the earlier lenient war mandate of “20 steadfast Muslims can overcome 200” (8:65) was adjusted to “100 can overcome 200” (8:66) when Muslims grew weaker, lightening the burden . In each case, they saw God’s wisdom in the change. Meanwhile, they rejected unsubstantiated claims of abrogation, especially when the verses could be complementary (for example, many argued “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) was not negated by any later verse but remains a valid principle alongside the verses about combat, since it addresses a different matter – conversion, not conduct in war).

Reasons and Wisdom Behind Quranic Abrogation

scholars have devoted much thought to why Allah uses abrogation as part of the unfolding of the Shari’ah. Several key wisdoms are commonly cited in classical and modern writings:

In light of these wisdoms, scholars often respond to criticism by analogies. One analogy: A doctor treating a patient may change the prescription over the course of the illness – first one medication, then a stronger one, or a different treatment as the patient’s condition evolves. This doesn’t mean the first prescription was a mistake; it was suitable for an earlier stage, and the change is for the patient’s benefit. Similarly, Allah the Most Wise prescribes laws suited to the spiritual and social “health” of the community at a given time . Early Meccan Muslims, essentially beginners, received basic guidance (focus on faith, ethics, and simple rules), while later in Madinah, when they were more established, Allah revealed detailed laws and sometimes replaced earlier leniencies with more stringent standards (or vice versa) as appropriate. This holistic view – that the Quran’s legal revelations formed a systematic progression – is a cornerstone of understanding of naskh.

Modern Perspectives on Naskh

Contemporary scholars generally affirm the classical understanding of abrogation but often with an emphasis on correctly identifying abrogated verses and not overstating their number. Many 20th–21st century scholars stress that contextual interpretation can resolve most apparent conflicts, resorting to abrogation only when evidence is clear. For example, modern commentators strongly reject the misinterpretation that the “verse of the sword” (9:5) canceled all preceding verses of peace or tolerance. They point out, as we saw with Tabari and Qurtubi, that those peaceful verses still operate in circumstances of peace. Renowned scholar Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi wrote that “it is a grave error to think that 9:5 abrogated 120 verses on mercy and forbearance; rather, each applies in its own context.” This sentiment echoes the classical majority. Only a handful of Quranic verses are agreed upon as truly abrogated – often cited examples include the gradual alcohol injunctions, some inheritance and waiting-period rulings, and a few others . Mufassirun like Muhammad Rashid Rida (d. 1935) and Mawlana Mawdudi (d. 1979) enumerated very few definite cases of naskh in the Quran. They, like earlier scholars, underscore that naskh was never about negating fundamental principles or creed, only about regulatory laws which by nature can change. Modern academic studies (e.g. by Muhammad Abu Zahra, Mustafa Zayd) have reinforced that the Quran’s abrogation was limited and purposeful.

At the same time, a minority of modernist voices have questioned the entire doctrine of abrogation, arguing that all verses can be reconciled without any being voided. They often re-interpret the classical examples as instances of takhsees (specification) or temporal limitation rather than true abrogation. However, mainstream scholarship has not accepted a blanket rejection of naskh, viewing it as contrary to the Quranic text and the Prophet’s teachings . This methodological carefulness actually upholds the sanctity of all Quranic verses, honoring each verse’s role.

To make the discussion accessible, writers today sometimes list “abrogation did NOT wipe out these key principles” – highlighting, for example, that verses on kindness, justice, and freedom of belief remain part of Shari’ah alongside verses on punishment or warfare. They illustrate that the Quran’s message operates on multiple levels (ideal ethics vs. enforcement in wrongdoing situations), rather than later verses simply overriding earlier moral guidance. This aligns with Shaltut’s view that “in each situation [the believers] follow what is most suitable… [this] is not contradiction… [but] wise legislation” .

In summary, contemporary scholarship continues to teach naskh as an important concept to understand the evolution of Quranic legislation, while dispelling myths about it. They emphasize historical context: early Muslims were taken through a divinely guided training process, and abrogation was one of the tools of that process. Far from implying error or fickleness, it demonstrates God’s mastery in delivering the final and most beneficial laws. Modern scholars also highlight the morality and objectives behind abrogated and abrogating texts, showing that naskh always aimed to achieve a higher purpose (whether justice, purity, ease, or preparation of the community). By prioritizing the insights of classical authorities like Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Tabari, and Al-Shawkani, scholarship today roots its understanding in a long intellectual tradition. These scholars all agreed that abrogation occurs by God’s will to refine the law, and they documented it with care. As Ibn al-Jawzi wrote centuries ago, “the first ruling indicated such-and-such… then it was abrogated by the later ruling” – a factual description of how certain Quranic commands were replaced by later ones. Each case of naskh became a lesson in Allah’s wisdom and a part of the Seerah (Prophetic history). Studying those cases gives Muslims insight into the dynamic nature of revelation and the underlying continuity of Allah’s guidance, which always seeks the betterment of humanity “that you may succeed.”

Conclusion

The concept of naskh in the Quran – abrogation of one ruling by another – is a well-established part of Islamic scholarship. Classical scholars from each of the four schools of thought wrote about it as a matter of doctrine and hermeneutics. Far from seeing it as a flaw, they considered it one of the signs of divine wisdom in accommodating human needs and gradual spiritual development. Ibn Kathir highlighted Allah’s power and wisdom to change law for the good of people . Al-Tabari demonstrated that what some called contradictions are resolved when one understands the context and purpose of each revelation . Al-Qurtubi and others catalogued which verses were actually abrogated and which were merely qualified, preventing overzealous nullification of Quranic teachings . Ash-Shawkani reaffirmed the consensus on abrogation and rationalized it as a necessary feature of a law meant to endure changing conditions . In our times, respected scholars continue this legacy: explaining to Muslims and non-Muslims that abrogation in the Quran is not random deletion, but a deliberate, thoughtful process by which Islam’s legal and moral system was perfected. It allowed the nascent Muslim community to absorb new laws stepwise, replacing prior allowances with stricter commands (or vice versa) at the proper time, much like building blocks. Every verse – whether abrogating or abrogated – plays a role in illustrating the trajectory of Islam’s teachings.

Ultimately, the doctrine of naskh underscores that the Quran was revealed over 23 years in real-life circumstances, not all at once. This step-by-step revelation is actually mentioned in the Quran as a blessing (25:32). Abrogation is one facet of that stepwise revelation. Understanding it enriches one’s appreciation for the Shari’ah’s flexibility and depth. It also guards against misusing earlier verses in contexts where later guidance has come, and against dismissing the Quran as internally inconsistent. By studying the commentary of scholars like Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Tabari, Shawkani, and insights of modern scholars, we see a coherent picture: abrogation occurs in Islamic jurisprudence to achieve a higher goal – whether facilitating ease, purifying society, or testing devotion – and it reflects Allah’s profound wisdom in legislating for mankind’s journey towards righteousness. As the Quran itself assures, whenever Allah abrogates a verse or causes it to be set aside, “He brings forth one better than it or equal to it” , and He knows what each moment demands.