…it may therefore be said—and this accords most closely with the usage of the early scholars—that they called every form of removal naskh, whether it nullifies a legal ruling or only cancels an apparent indication. (1) Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu al-Fatawa, 13:29-30: “The earliest Muslims would accept no text as opposing a Quranic verse unless it was (i) another verse that explained and abrogated it, or (ii) the Sunnah of the Messenger, which clarifies, points to and expresses the Quran. They used to call whatever opposed an ayah its nasikh (abrogator). For them naskh was a general term for anything that removes an ayah’s indication of an erroneous meaning, even if that meaning was never actually intended by the verse and its wording does not outwardly support it. Yet some people may have understood the verse in that way, so whatever dispelled that ambiguity or misconception they named naskh. One should not adopt this terminology from each individual among them; its origin lies in Allah’s words concerning Satan’s interference: ‘So Allah repeals what Satan casts, then Allah confirms His verses’ (Q 22:52). Thus, whatever Satan casts into people’s minds—namely, the supposition that an ayah denotes a meaning it does not denote—those scholars called what removes that supposition naskh. Accordingly, they regarded the verse, ‘So fear Allah as much as you are able’ (Q 64:16) as the nasikh of ‘Fear Allah with the fear due to Him’ (Q 3:102); and ‘Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity’ (Q 2:286) as the nasikh of ‘Whether you disclose what is within yourselves or conceal it, Allah will call you to account for it; then He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills’ (Q 2:284); and similar cases whose details are not the concern here.”