16
Unless, of course, the person making this claim is among those who apply the term “abrogation” to the restriction of an unrestricted statement or the specification of a general one—indeed, some of them even call a simple exception an abrogation. Such usage is found among a group of the early scholars: whenever one verse removes what people imagine to be the import of another, they say it has abrogated it. Calling this “abrogation” does accord with the language, just as Allah Himself described the removal of what Satan cast in as abrogation when He said, “Allah abrogates what Satan interjects, then Allah makes His verses firm” (Q 22:52) (1).
(1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya states in his Fatawa, 13/272: “A number of the early exegetes said that the muhkam (clear or decisive verses) are those that abrogate, whereas the mutashabih (ambiguous verses) are those that are abrogated. What they apparently meant—God knows best—is the verse: ‘Allah removes what Satan casts, then Allah makes His verses firm’ (Q 22:52). Here, naskh (abrogation) denotes the elimination of what Satan inserted, not the repeal of anything Allah Himself legislated. I later pointed out the basis of this view: Allah sometimes contrasts muhkam with mutashabih, and at other times with mansukh (abrogated). In the broad usage of the early Muslims, mansukh includes every text whose apparent meaning is set aside because of a stronger piece of evidence, such as specifying a general statement or restricting an unqualified one. Such passages are deemed mutashabih because they can be understood in two ways.” He continues: “On other occasions, ithkam (making firm) refers to preserving the revelation intact vis-à-vis those who consider naskh to be the annulment of a ruling, which is the technical sense, or …
اللَّهُمَّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُوْنَ قَائِلُ هَذَا القَوْل مِمَّنْ يُسَمِّي تَقْييدَ المُطْلَقِ وَتَخْصِيصَ العَامِ نَسْخًا، حَتَّى قَدْ يُسَمِّي الاسْتِثْنَاء نَسْخًا، وَهَذَا اصْطِلَاحُ جَمَاعَةٍ مِنَ السَّلَف، فَكُلُّ آيَةٍ رَفَعَتْ مَا يُظَنُّ مِنْ دَلالَةٍ أُخْرَى قَالُوْا: إِنَّها نَسَخَتْهَا، وَتَسْمِيةُ هَذَا نَسْخًا مُطَابِقٌ لِلغَة، كَمَا سَمَّى اللهُ رَفْعَ مَا أَلْقَى الشَّيطَانُ نَسْخًا بِقَوْلِهِ: ﴿فَيَنْسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ﴾ (١).
(١) قال شيخ الإسلام في الفتاوى (١٣/ ٢٧٢): (قال طائفة من المفسرين المتقدمين: إن المحكم هو الناسخ، والمتشابه المنسوخ، أرادوا - والله أعلم - قوله: ﴿فَيَنْسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ﴾، والنسخ هنا: رفع ما ألقاه الشيطان، لا رفع مما شرعه الله، وقد أشرت إلى وجه ذلك فيما بعد وهو أن الله جعل المحكم مقابل المتشابه تارة، ومقابل المنسوخ أخرى، والمنسوخ يدخل فيه في اصطلاح السلف العام كل ظاهر ترك ظاهره لمعارض راجح، كتخصيص العام، وتقييد المطلق، فإن هذا متشابه؛ لأنه يحتمل معنيين) إلى أن قال: (وتارة يكون الأحكام في إبقاء التنزيل عند من قابله بالنسخ الذي هو رفع ما شرع، وهو اصطلاحي، أو =