<![CDATA[The concepts of nasikh (abrogation) and mansukh (abrogated) in the Qur’an constitute a significant yet controversial issue within the fields of Ulum al-Qur’an (Qur’anic sciences) and usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence), particularly regarding the designation of a verse as mansukh . Divergent standards concerning the use of narrations, the chronology of revelation, and the identification of apparent contradictions between verses lead to differing conclusions regarding which verses have undergone abrogation. This study aims to methodologically analyze the criteria and grounds for designating a verse as mansukh and to examine their application in several contested cases. The research employs a library research method utilizing descriptive-comparative and content analysis approaches. Data were gathered from the Qur’an, hadith, works of classical scholars, and contemporary academic literature relevant to the study of nasikh-mansukh . The analysis involved identifying narrations, tracing the chronology of revelation, examining legal relationships between verses, and comparing findings with alternative interpretive methods such as takhsis (specification), taqyid (restriction), and harmonization. The results indicate that designating a verse as mansukh cannot rely solely on differences in content or apparent contradictions between verses; rather, it requires verifiable narrations, chronological certainty, a shared legal subject matter, and the fulfillment of specific conditions for abrogation. An analysis of QS al-Baqarah [2]: 240 and 234, QS an-Nisa’ [4]: 15 and QS an-Nur [24]: 2, as well as QS al-Mujadilah [58]: 12–13, reveals that the strength of the claim for abrogation varies across these cases. Consequently, nasikh should be regarded as a methodological conclusion reached only when other interpretive alternatives prove insufficient. This approach underscores the need for caution in Qur’anic exegesis and precision in the derivation ( istinbat ) of Islamic law.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
