Category: Articles

This article critiques the concept of abrogation of rulings (Naskh al-Ahkaam) as applied in the literature of Islamic jurisprudence and exegesis. As such, it surveys the subject of abrogation (Naskh) in the Quran, Hadith and Islamic literature. The article illustrates that the concept of abrogation of rulings was introduced after the Prophetic era in order to explain certain verses of the Quranand what has come to be termed as “conflicting Prophetic narrations” (Mukhtalaf al-Hadith).

Deliberation (Ijtihad) is a necessary practice for Scriptural interpretation and juridical analogy. However, there is a difference of opinion among jurists as to whether deliberation was practiced by the Prophet, himself. The majority of jurists approved the idea of Prophetic deliberation but had several different opinions about its scope and the possibility of error. This article supports the view of Prophetic deliberation, attempts to define its scope, and discusses the issue of error in relation to the concept of Prophetic infallibility. The presented analysis is used to outline criteria to differentiate between the changeable and the absolute in the Islamic Jurisprudence based on what was subject to Prophetic deliberation and what was not, respectively.