TheMostReadBook.org

Beautiful!

The fact that the Quran was not revealed in the order it is transcribed (or looking at it in a different way, it was mandated to be transcribed in a particular order that is diiferent from the order of revelation) may have a bearing on abrogation. The order of revelation is not part of the transcription, and what we know about that order is neither complete nor certain. This adds an uncertainty, in the case of perceived conflict, about what abrogated what. Since the burden of proof for abrogation of individual verses is pretty high by all accounts, this added uncertainty makes it more difficult to overcome that burden of proof.

Indeed. This became salient in the case of 2:234/2:240. The claim acknowledged the dilemma that the abrogating verse precedes the abrogated verse in transcription. Some scholars claimed that the order of revelation was the opposite, but they had no proof. In fact, the majority of the scholars acknowledged that the order of revelation of these two verses matches their transcription order and thus they had to conclude that a verse may abrogate another that is yet to be revealed!! That's how desperate some of them were in defending a seriously flawed conclusion.

I don't know where to start, but let me constrain myself and point out a contradiction. Pro-abrogation scholars put as a condition for abrogation that the abrogated rule must have been applied at least once. If the abrogated rule came after the abrogating rule, then the abrogated rule has a still birth with no chance of being legitimately applied even once.

Just a reminder that Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy's book in its entirety is a treatment of the dynamic phase of the religion. He argues that this is all there is to it when it comes to abrogation. This seems to me that it just changes the name of the phenomenon but does not refute it. Modulo that, I have to say that the content of the book is thorough and logical.