Naskh and context in contemporary Qur’anic hermeneutics

Abstract

This study reexamines a central question in contemporary Qur’anic studies: should naskh be treated as an indispensable mechanism for resolving apparent tensions among verses, or can many alleged instances be explained through context and established interpretive categories? Using comparative textual analysis, the study traces the changing scope of naskh in selected classical and modern works and examines the marked contraction of lists of abrogated verses among later scholars, including Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Suyūṭī, and Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī. It argues that this divergence reflects, in part, the historical conflation of abrogation with specification (takhṣīṣ), restriction (taqyīd), clarification (bayān), and legislative gradualism. Drawing on Ibn ʿĀshūr’s interpretation of Q 2:106 and his attention to context and maqāṣid, the article proposes four conditions for a defensible claim of abrogation: an irreconcilable legal conflict, reliable chronological evidence, a ruling that originally indicated continuity, and a later revealed ruling that replaces it. Where these conditions are absent, reconciliation and contextual differentiation should take priority. This framework preserves the coherence of Qur’anic discourse while retaining naskh as a limited category within Islamic legal theory. It also provides a more precise basis for research and teaching on the abrogating and abrogated.