any of the early generations to indicate that he opposed the Quran with reason, opinion, or analogy, or with spiritual taste, ecstatic experience, or unveiling. Nor did any of them ever say, “Reason and transmitted revelation conflict on this matter,” let alone say, “Reason must therefore take precedence, while transmitted revelation—meaning the Quran, hadith, and statements of the Companions and their successors—must either be consigned to Allah or reinterpreted.”

Nor did any of them claim to have a spiritual taste, ecstatic experience, inward address, or unveiling that contradicted the Quran and hadith. Still less did any of them claim that he received knowledge from the same source as the angel who comes to the Messenger, that he drew knowledge of Allah’s oneness from that source, and that all the prophets drew from his niche of light. Nor did any of them say, “A friend of Allah is superior to a prophet,” or make similar statements uttered by heretics. Such claims had not yet arisen among the Muslims.

Claims of this kind were known only among heretics from among the Jews or Christians. Some of them allow that someone who is not a prophet may be superior to a prophet, as they may say concerning the disciples. They regard them as messengers and say that they are superior to David and Solomon—indeed, even to Abraham and Moses—although they call them prophets. They make other such claims as well.

The early generations would not accept anything set against a verse except another verse that explained and abrogated it, or the Sunnah of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that explained it. For the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, clarifies the Quran, points to its meaning, and expresses it.

They would call whatever countered a verse an abrogating text. Thus, for them, abrogation was a general term for anything that removed a verse’s apparent indication of a false meaning, even if that meaning was not