TheMostReadBook.org

As-Suyooti reported that Makki has said that 40:7 abrogated 42:5, which, he said, is the only abrogation case of Meccan verses. As-Suyooti corrected him by giving the example of 73:20/73:2-4. While abrogation in the 40:7/42:5 case, if it can be proven, carries no consequence to the law as the two verses do not contain rulings, we still include it in the discussion because we do want to encompass all claims of abrogation of verses that have remained in the Quran. Here are the two verses in this case,

is claimed to have been abrogated by

To begin with, Chapter 42 is recognized to have been revealed after Chapter 40, so the abrogation claim is weakened by chronology. Besides, both verses are statements of fact, and thus cannot be abrogated. In addition, 40:7 does not say that the angels stopped "praying for those on earth." In other words, the angels may very well be praying for all people on earth but perhaps more for the believers. I do not see abrogation here for those reasons. God knows best.

Moreover, 40:7 speaks of special angels, those who carry the Throne and those around them. That is an elect group. It may be that this elect group can only pray for the believers and repenters, but the rest of the angels are permitted to pray for sinners and disbelievers too. With this apparent explanation, there is no contradiction and therefore no need to claim abrogation.

Another plausible explanation is that 42:5 includes believers and 40:7 does not exclude disbelievers, therefore there is no conflict to resolve between the two.

I picked this shortened quote since it raises the decisive point; Verse 42:5 is statement of fact and thus cannot be abrogated.

Ibn Al-Jawzi reports the same claim in his book نواسخ القرآن. He writes,


He says that Ibn Munbih and As-Suddi said it was abrogated. Ibn Al-Jawzi refutes it with harsh words saying that both verses are statements of facts and therefore cannot be abrogated. He asserts that one verse is general and the other is specific.

He says Qataada agrees there is no abrogation and that 42:5 references the believers though it did not name them. So said Abul-Husayn ibn Al-Munaadi.

Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas said something very important! He said that it is possible that Ibn Munbih meant that the two verses are copies of each other. That is a linguistic meaning of "naskh" which ironically is the exact opposite of abrogation!

Very important. This is such a ridiculous abrogation claim that some explanation like that becomes plausible.

For:
Wahb ibn Munbih,
As-Suddi,
Muqaatil ibn Sulaymaan,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Qataada,
Abul-Husayn ibn Al-Munaadi,
Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas,
Makki and Ibn Al`Arabi (according to Al-Khazraji),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la,
Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi, Al-Qurtubi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi,
Haani Taahir.