Naskh (Abrogation) in the Qur’an

Naskh means that a later Qur’anic ruling supersedes an earlier one on the same matter — the earlier verse’s wording remains part of the Qur’an, but its specific legal ruling is no longer the operative one. This is a narrower idea than it sounds: scholars only recognise Naskh where there is a genuine, direct conflict between two rulings on the same specific situation that cannot be reconciled another way, and the later ruling is clearly established. It is not a general licence to set aside verses that feel difficult, and the great majority of the Qur’an is not affected by it at all.

The clearest, most concrete example is the change of the Qibla (the direction Muslims face in prayer). For about sixteen or seventeen months after the migration to Madinah, the Prophet ﷺ and the early Muslim community prayed facing Jerusalem. Then a new revelation arrived, and the direction changed permanently to the Ka’bah in Makkah. Ibn ‘Umar described exactly how the news reached ordinary worshippers: “While some people were offering Fajr prayer at Quba mosque, someone came to them and said, “Qur’anic literature” has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) tonight, and he has been ordered to face the Ka`ba (of Mecca) so you too, should turn your faces towards it. Their faces were then towards Sham (Jerusalem), so they turned towards the Qibla .” The change happened mid-way through the night, and the very next prayer, people simply turned around where they stood.

Al-Bara’ ibn ‘Azib, who prayed facing both directions at different points in his life, described the same event from the Prophet’s ﷺ own side, along with the actual verse that arrived: “Then Allah ordered him to turn his face towards the Qibla (in Mecca):– “And from whence-so-ever you start forth (for prayers) turn your face in the direction of (the Sacred Mosque of Mecca) Al-Masjid-ul Haram.” (Qur’an 2:144). The earlier instruction to face Jerusalem is still there in the Qur’an’s history and in the hadith literature — it was a real, followed command for over a year — but the ruling itself was abrogated by this later verse, and no Muslim prays facing Jerusalem today because of it.

The Qibla change is useful precisely because it is so unambiguous: a specific practice, a specific verse changing it, and a specific, datable moment when the community’s practice changed as a result. Most other proposed cases of Naskh in Qur’anic scholarship are far more debated than this one, which is why scholars treat it carefully rather than applying it loosely.