Islam and nasikh??

[Infanteer]

where did you gain your understanding of this subject?

Me?   Reading.   I'm nothing but a commentator, so take that for what it's worth.

Now, I googled this concept, and it is interesting:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Denffer_uaq/Ch5S3.htm

AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH
The revelations from Allah as found in the Qur'an touch on a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the prophets, day of judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings), because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed.

While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law (shari'a) for their respective communities.

The Arabic words 'nasikh' and 'mansukh' are both derived from the same root word 'nasakha' which carries meanings such as 'to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate'.

The word nasikh (an active participle) means 'the abrogating', while mansukh (passive) means 'the abrogated'. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur'anic revelation, which have been 'abrogated' by others. Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called 'mansukh' while the abrogating one is called 'nasikh'.

However, the summary says a good bit:

The Qur'an, in 2:106, refers to the concept of naskh. However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of the Qur'an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur'an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. 'A'isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of the Qur'anic recitation, and only 'Umar reported that the 'verse of stoning' had been included in the Qur'anic text. These legal rulings are not included in the Qur'an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh, based on the words of Ibn 'Abbas or Mujahid alone, are to be judged by the same measure.

However, as mentioned there remain a small number of verses which, as far as can be ascertained from the internal evidence of the Qur'an, have been superseded by other verses in the Qur'an.

This seems to be a relevent principle in Islam, but perhaps an obscure and debated one.   Judging from what I have seen Muslims say (you can find many excellent clips here), these nuances don't seem to be a big factor in acting as causality for the actions we see unfolding today.   I'd stick to the bigger principles - principles that pop up in the rantings of guys like Osama bin Laden; this is what everybody hears and (re)acts to.

 

[Mojo Magnum]

essentially what I was getting at was that Surah 9:5 supercedes Surah 2:256.

thats pretty much it in nut shell.

sounded fascinating a few hours ago,

till someone hit me over the head with a 1000 years of history. ???

 

[Infanteer]

Essentially what I was getting at is you aren't going to find any definitive answer on a minor (and debatable) nuance.

1000 years of history had the weight of a freight-train.

 

[Mojo Magnum]

no doubt.

but hey,

I was looking for an edumacation

thanx for the info.