Naskh, or abrogation, means that a later ruling in the Qur'an 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 may sound. Scholars only recognise abrogation where there is a genuine, direct conflict between two rulings on the same specific situation, which cannot be reconciled in any other way, and where 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 example is the change of the qiblah, the direction Muslims face in prayer. For about sixteen or seventeen months after the migration to Madinah, the Prophet, peace be upon him, 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 how the news reached ordinary worshippers. While some people were praying the dawn prayer at the mosque of Quba, someone came and told them that revelation had come to the Prophet that night, and that he had been ordered to face the Ka'bah. They had been facing Jerusalem, and they turned around where they stood. This is in Sahih al-Bukhari, number forty-four ninety-four.

Al-Bara ibn Azib, who prayed facing both directions at different times, described it from the Prophet's side, along with the verse that arrived, chapter two, verse one hundred and forty-four, in the translation given on the page: “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”. That is in Sahih al-Bukhari, number forty-four ninety-two.

The earlier instruction to face Jerusalem was a real, followed command for over a year, and it remains part of the Qur'an's history and the hadith literature. But its ruling was abrogated by the later verse, and no Muslim prays facing Jerusalem today.

This example is useful precisely because it is so clear: a specific practice, a specific verse changing it, and a datable moment when the community's practice changed. Most other proposed cases of abrogation are far more debated, which is why scholars treat the subject carefully rather than applying it loosely.