Naskh (Abrogation): When Allah Changed His Mind, It Was Always to Solve Muhammad's Sexual Desires or Political Crises

What Is Naskh?

According to Islamic teachings, Naskh is to replace or cancel one verse of the Quran with another revealed later. According to this theory, God initially gave a guideline then subsequently determined to alter it. Muslims consider this to be among God's wisdom since they think He provides rules gradually to match the requirements of an expanding community.

The Quran talks about this:

(Quran 2:106): "We don’t remove a verse or let it be forgotten unless We bring a better one or one similar to it. Don’t you know that Allah is capable of everything?"

(Quran 16:101): "And when We replace a verse with another, and Allah knows exactly what He sends down, they claim you are just making things up. Still, a lot of them still don't get it."

For more than fourteen hundred years, Muslim academics have extensively examined the idea of Naskh, which is supported by the Quran and is not something critics invented. But skeptics sometimes pose a simple question: Given Allah knows everything, why would He find it necessary to modify His decisions?

Standard Islamic Viewpoint on Naskh and Why It Fails

Muslim academics make the following points on Naskh:

• To match human psychology, Allah unveiled revelations gradually and in phases.
• As conditions changed, Allah changed his rulings.
• Allah's knowledge is limitless; He knew that some judgments would only apply to particular times and settings, therefore abrogating them was a pre-arranged change and not an error.
• Muslim intellectuals often point to "gradual prohibition of wine," which we will go over later.

But when we look at Naskh's cases more closely, these ideas don't make sense. Naskh cases often follow a "reactive pattern," meaning that a judgment is handed down, people revolt or oppose, and a new judgment that grants them precisely what they sought comes right away.

Study of these Naskh examples also reveals how heavenly decrees were swiftly altered to meet Muhammad's sexual demands.

Table of Contents:

 

Case Study 1: The Shifting of the Qibla

Muhammad moved the Qibla from Bayt al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem) to the Kaaba as a result of his animosity against the Jews. 

Muhammad first carried out the Qibla alteration in Mecca and instructed his disciples to pray toward Bayt al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem), rather than the Kaaba, as he claimed his new religion was a continuation of the God of the Jews and Christians. Muhammad further embraced numerous Jewish customs and regulations to appease the Jews of Medina upon arriving there, such as:

• Dietary Regulations: Inspired by kosher principles, he created halal standards.
• Riba (Usury): Like Judaism, Islam outlawed interest and subsequently tightened regulations.
• Legal Penalties (Qisas): Accepted "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:23-25).
• Ritual Purification: Ablution (wudu) before prayer is similar to the Jewish Mikvah.
• Prohibition of Images: Prohibited creating images resembling the rules in Judaism (Exodus 20:4).
• Circumcision: Muhammad likewise adopted circumcision from the Jews (Genesis 17:10-14).

But he quickly met total disaster when the Jews rejected his assertion of prophecy and instead called him a phony prophet. Thus started the animosity with the Jews, which resulted in the abrogation of Bayt al-Muqaddas as the Qibla, and reestablishing the Kaaba in Mecca as the Qibla.

People then thought Muhammad was upset while the Jews didn't think he was a prophet, so he changed the Qibla in response. Answering this attack, Muhammad referred to the detractors in the Quran as "Stupid/fools." The Quran speaks of it as thus (Surah Al-Baqarah, Verses 143 to 146):

"The stupid among the people will question, 'What has turned them away from their Qibla, which they used to face?' We just assigned the Qibla you used to confront to find out who would turn around on his heels and who would follow the Messenger."

People (including Muslims) started to wonder what kind of God this was and what kind of knowledge it was that first led them to face the Kaaba, then changed the Qibla to Jerusalem, and then, just 15 months later, chose to change it back to the Kaaba because the Jews were hostile.

The author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) could not have properly addressed this challenge. Muhammad hence called them "fools/stupids" in the Quran in an effort to quiet these detractors. He then claimed Allah wished to witness who would turn back on his heels.

This is a quite bizarre justification suggesting that Allah switched the Qibla twice just to observe some people turn around. Most intriguingly, history does not show even one person who rejected Islam because of the Qibla shift.

Therefore, Muslims still wonder if the Qibla alteration caused not one individual to abandon Islam, why would Allah need to change the Qibla twice? Muhammad clearly expressed his own animosity against the Jews by using Allah's name. Consider if there genuinely were an All-Knowing and All-Wise Allah in the heavens who knew the future, would He arrange such a play of shifting the Qibla twice?

And would He offend individuals by referring to them as "fools and idiots" when they were justifiably challenging the ridiculousness of these two useless Qibla modifications? Do these plays of turning the Qibla twice not seem to you more like "human mistakes" than like heavenly inspirations?

Case Study 2: Allah Broke His Own Covenant at the Battle of Hunayn

Case Study 2: Allah Broke His Own Covenant at the Battle of Hunayn

Following the Battle of Uhud, in which the Sahabah abandoned their posts and fled, Allah gave a severe admonishment in the Quran that any believer who turned his back on the battlefield would face divine wrath and everlasting hellfire:

(Quran 8:15-16): "O believers, do not abandon the disbelievers in battle. And anyone who does so on such an occasion, unless it's a strategic retreat or joining another fighting force, will most definitely suffer the wrath of Allah, and Hell will be their residence. What a horrible place to visit."

This was not a minor suggestion. There was a definite heavenly covenant with a particular and harsh penalty linked to it.

The Sahabah violated this promise at the Battle of Hunayn (8 AH). Muhammad urged them to stand their ground, but they ran in fear from the battlefield. The Quran alone confirms this without a doubt:

(Quran 9:25): "Allah has already made you victorious in many places and on the day of Hunayn, when you were pleased with your large numbers but they were useless for you at all and the earth was too small for you with its vastness. Then you fled back."

Allah's own covenant in 8:15-16 says that every companion who ran away at Hunayn had now earned divine wrath and was going to Hell. Still, Allah gave a forgiveness verse rather than carry out his vow:

(Quran 9:27): "Then Allah will accept repentance from whom He wills. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

The very statements of the Quran conflict with one another. Allah promised those who ran punishment and Hell. The Sahabah took flight. Allah then forgave them. The very book that asserts "you will never find any change in Allah's way" (48:23) and "who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah" (9:111) includes in its own pages a sequence wherein Allah makes a promise then breaks it.

The question is: Why did Allah forgive them the 2nd time too, despite earlier telling them clearly during the first incident of running, that if it happens again, then they would face Allah's wrath? 

The answer is simple, it was impossible for Muhammad (/Allah) to punish such a large numbers of his male companions, as he needed their support. Thus, the only political solution left for Muhammad was to go against the previous promise of wrath for running away, and again grant them forgiveness the 2nd time. 

This problem does not exist if we understand the Quran as the work of a human author (i.e., there is no Allah present in the heavens). Muhammad issued the threat in 8:15-16 himself, because he genuinely needed his soldiers to hold their ground and he did not know what would happen at future battles. When the Sahabah fled at Hunayn (the 2nd time too) and he could not afford to lose their loyalty by punishing a large and powerful group of companions, he issued the forgiveness verse because the political situation demanded it from him not to make his companions angry. A human leader responding to real events in real time would behave exactly this way. But an omniscient God with no political pressures and complete foreknowledge of all future events would have no reason to.

Case Study 3: Allah didn't KNOW initially that one Muslim cannot face 10 Kafirs in battle

Compare the following 2 verses, where firstly Allah claimed that one Muslim had a strength to overcome 10 Kafirs. But then upon protest from Muslims, Allah had to ABROGATE the first verse and made a new claim in a new verse that one Muslim had a strength to overcome only 2 Kafirs. 

Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 65:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّ‌ضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ ۚ إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُ‌ونَ صَابِرُ‌ونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ 

"O Prophet! Encourage the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred, they will overcome a thousand disbelievers, because they are a people who do not understand."

Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 66:

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّـهُ عَنكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا ۚ فَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ صَابِرَ‌ةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِ‌ينَ

For the time being Allah has lightened (expectations) from you, and He has known (i.e. He has found out) that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred. And if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand under Permission of Allah. And Allah is on the side of those who are perseverant. (Translated by Dr. Kamal Omar)

Ibn Kathir recorded the following under the commentary of this verse (link):

Ibn `Abbas said, "When this Ayah was revealed, it was difficult for the Muslims, for they thought it was burdensome since twenty should fight two hundred, and a hundred against a thousand. Allah made this ruling easy for them and abrogated this Ayah with another Ayah.

This sequence already raises a serious question about divine omniscience. If Allah knew from eternity that the companions could not sustain a 1:10 ratio, why issue that command in the first place? Why put the companions through the fear and the protest before adjusting? The only coherent answer is that the original verse was issued by a human who misjudged his audience's reaction, then corrected himself under pressure.

Case Study 4: The Breastfeeding Verses

Before getting into the details, a little background is necessary to understand why this ruling existed in the first place.

Muhammad had declared that an adopted son becomes a non-Mahram to his foster mother once he reaches adulthood. This single ruling shattered the intimacy of countless families overnight. On top of this, Muhammad had also placed strict restrictions on any interaction between women and men who were not their Mahram, which created serious practical difficulties in everyday life.

To solve this problem, Muhammad introduced a remarkable workaround. He ruled that if a woman breastfed an adult man, he would become her Mahram, and the restrictions would no longer apply between them.

This ruling immediately raised a question that even the companions found uncomfortable: how exactly was an adult man supposed to be breastfed? The following hadith gives us a glimpse into that discomfort, and into Muhammad's reaction to it:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1453a:

That smile and that laugh are worth pausing on. Sahla was clearly distressed. Her husband was visibly disturbed. But Muhammad found the situation amusing. The most straightforward reading of this exchange is that the breastfeeding was meant to happen directly from the nipples of Sahla, and that the awkwardness of a grown man nursing from a woman's breast was not lost on anyone in the room, except apparently on the man who had issued the ruling.

Now, with this background in place, we arrive at the abrogation.

The First Problem: Why 10 times before 5?

The original Quranic verse on this matter specified that ten breastfeeding sessions were required to establish Mahram status. This verse was later abrogated and replaced with a new verse specifying five sessions.

The question this raises is simple and has never been answered satisfactorily. Why was the verse of ten sessions revealed first at all? What divine wisdom required starting at ten and then correcting it to five? Would the companions have revolted against Allah if He had sent the five-sessions verse from the beginning? Was there some cosmic necessity for that specific number that later turned out to be unnecessary?

If abrogation occurred because of a genuine change in circumstances or a genuine social need, one can at least follow the logic, however uneasily. But here there is no change in circumstances in this case. The problem being solved, namely the "awkwardness" of adult breastfeeding and the discomfort it caused in households, was present from the very first day. The number ten did not solve it. The number five did not solve it either, as we will see. There is no identifiable reason why a perfect, all-knowing God would need to arrive at the correct number through a process of trial and revision. That is precisely how a human legislator works, not an omniscient deity.

The Second Problem: Why did men find 10 sessions less disgusting than 5?

The hadith above gives us an important clue about what actually drove the change. Muhammad laughed when told about Abu Hudhaifa's visible disgust. The text strongly implies that the breastfeeding was happening directly, and that men in these households were finding the whole arrangement deeply uncomfortable. Ten sessions of this would naturally be more difficult to endure than five. The reduction from ten to five looks far less like divine refinement and far more like a practical concession to the reality that men were revolted by the practice their own Prophet had mandated.

This is a very human pattern. A ruler introduces a policy, discovers that the people it affects find it intolerable, and quietly reduces the burden to make it more acceptable. It is sensible and understandable governance. But it is not what an all-knowing God who designed human nature and fully understood the implications of His own rulings would need to do.

The Third Problem: The verse disappeared but the ruling stayed

This is where the story moves from awkward to genuinely inexplicable.

After the ten-sessions verse was replaced by the five-sessions verse, something further happened that no apologist has ever been able to explain with any coherence. The five-sessions verse was itself erased from the Quran. Removed entirely. It no longer appears anywhere in the Quranic text that Muslims recite today.

But its ruling was kept. Muslims are still expected to follow the five-sessions standard to this day, on the basis of a verse that no longer exists in their scripture.

Let us be precise about what this means. We now have a ruling with no verse, which replaced a ruling whose verse was also removed, which itself replaced the original practice. Three layers of revision, with nothing in the final Quran to show for the first two, and only a ruling with no scriptural basis remaining from the third.

The questions this raises are not subtle.

If the five-sessions verse contained a ruling worth preserving, why was the verse deleted? A ruling and its scriptural basis belong together. If Allah intended Muslims to follow the five-sessions standard, the verse encoding that standard should remain in His preserved and protected book. That is what "preserved and protected" means.

If the verse needed to be removed for some reason, then the ruling attached to it should logically have been removed with it.

The standard Islamic response to abrogation is that Allah in His wisdom replaces one ruling with a better one suited to changed circumstances. That argument has problems of its own, but it at least follows a recognizable logic. What follows no logic at all, even within that framework, is erasing a verse while retaining the ruling it contained. The apologist cannot appeal to "better ruling" because the ruling did not change. They cannot appeal to "changed circumstances" because the ruling remained in force. All they are left with is the claim that Allah chose to remove a verse for reasons that remain entirely His own and entirely beyond human understanding, so we should not ask this question. 

That answer, which amounts to "do not ask," is not theology. It is the abandonment of thought dressed up as piety.

What the three-layer problem of the breastfeeding verses actually reveals is a legislative process that was reactive, improvisational, and repeatedly revised in response to human discomfort and social pressure. That is exactly what we would expect if a human being were making these rules up as he went along. It is not what we would expect from the timeless, perfect, and complete knowledge of a divine creator who knew the end from the beginning.

Case Study 5: Zihar

During the era of ignorance in Arab society, there was a peculiar custom known as Zihar. If a man, in a fit of anger or unintentionally, compared his wife to his mother or her back to his mother's back, it was considered grounds for separation, akin to a divorce.  It was really a foolish practice of the people of the time of ignorance.

When Islam emerged, Allah (i.e. Muhammad) continued to endorse this foolish tradition of Zihar. However, later Allah/Muhammad had to abrogate this practice upon furious protest of his female companion. 

A companion of Muhammad who divorced his wife, Khuwaylah, through Zihar. Seeking justice, Khuwaylah approached Muhammad and expressed her grievances. However, Muhammad did not resolve her issue. Instead, against her wishes, he informed her that her husband had likened her to his mother, making him no longer her spouse but merely a cousin-brother. It is important to note that in Islam, once divorced, it is nearly impossible for a wife to remarry her husband unless she undergoes the degrading practice of Halala. Nonetheless, Zihar is even more stringent than Talaq (divorce), as it prevents the couple from reuniting even after Halala.

In response, Khuwaylah, the female companion, became furious and vehemently disagreed with Muhammad. She refused to leave and engaged in a dispute with him.

To resolve the situation and dismiss Khuwaylah, Muhammad conveniently claimed to receive a revelation from Allah. The revelation stated that Zihar had been abrogated, allowing Khuwaylah to reunite with her husband.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2214:

Narrated Khuwaylah, daughter of Malik ibn Tha'labah:
My husband, Aws ibn as-Samit, pronounced the words: You are like my mother. So I came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), complaining to him about my husband.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) disputed with me and said: Remain dutiful to Allah; he is your cousin.
I continued (complaining) until the Qur'anic verse came down (Quran 58:1-4): 
"Allah has indeed heard the speech of the woman who is disputing with you (O Muhammad) concerning her husband, and is complaining to Allah; and Allah hears the conversation of you both; indeed Allah is All Hearing, All Seeing ... Those who declare their wives to be their mothers and thereafter go back on what they have said shall free a slave before they may touch each other. "
He then said: He should set free a slave. She said: He cannot afford it. He said: He should fast for two consecutive months. She said: Apostle of Allah, he is an old man; he cannot keep fasts. He said: He should feed sixty poor people. She said: He has nothing which he may give in alms. At that moment an araq (i.e. date-basket holding fifteen or sixteen sa's) was brought to him.
I said: I shall help him with another date-basked ('araq). He said: You have done well. Go and feed sixty poor people, and return to your cousin.
(Abu Dawud said) She paid the penalty secretly, without telling her husband. 
(This tradition is "Sahih" i.e. authentic. Link)

Why did Allah not prohibit Zihar, along with other foolish divorce practices like Ila (الإيلاء), right from the beginning? If Allah is truly perfect, it would be expected that He would have prohibited this foolish practice without delay.

Due to Allah's negligence in prohibiting it, this unfortunate woman had to engage in an ongoing dispute with Muhammad to seek its abrogation.

Prophet Muhammad's response is also puzzling. Despite the women's awareness that Zihar was an evil and foolish practice, Muhammad did not demonstrate the same understanding. He did not ask Allah to prohibit it, but instead repeatedly advised the woman to forget about her husband and move on.

If Allah, who is claimed to be 100% perfect, had not previously prohibited Zihar, He could have immediately abrogated it when the woman first requested it. However, it seems that Allah chose to observe the entire drama of the dispute between the woman and Muhammad, only revealing the solution when she persisted in her disagreement, enabling Muhammad to rid himself of her.

Please take note:

• It is indeed peculiar and foolish that although the mistake of Zihar was committed by the husband, it was the poor woman who had to bear the penalty. Such a scenario raises questions about the nature of Divine Justice.
• Furthermore, why did Allah not COMPLETELY eliminate the issue by entirely abrogating Zihar (i.e. why to still keeping it a part of Sharia and still asking to free slaves to revert it)? In the non-Muslim world, we do not encounter any problems related to Zihar. So, why did Allah persist in addressing it through various penalties?

Allah boasting about his "All Hearing" power

(Quran 58:1-4): 
"Allah has indeed heard the speech of the woman who is disputing with you (O Muhammad) concerning her husband, and is complaining to Allah; and Allah hears the conversation of you both; indeed Allah is All Hearing, All Seeing 

One wonders why Allah has to boast here about his "All Hearing" powers? A "sensible" Allah didn't even need to first hear and see the whole drama of dispute and complaining, but He would have sent those commands even before Khaula (the female companion) had to come to Muhammad, or even at the begin of dispute, while Allah should also be "All Knowing", even about the future events. 

Case Study 6: Liaan لعان (Accusation of Adultery)

Allah also exhibits this ignorance in the issue of 'Lian.'

Initially, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad) stated that in the case of an accusation of adultery, four eyewitnesses were required who had personally seen the act of penetration. Failure to produce these four witnesses would result in all the witnesses being lashed with 80 stripes for making false accusations, even if they were telling the truth.

Common sense dictates that punishing witnesses with 80 stripes for telling the truth is contrary to justice. This ruling was seemingly made by Muhammad during the incident of IFK, where he wanted to punish the men who testified against his wife, 'Aisha. There he first made this new rule if the number of witnesses is less than 4, then they should be lashed 80 times (even if they are telling the Truth).  Please refer to our detailed article: The incident of Ifk and the Ruling of 4 Witnesses.

However, the problem arose when the Sahaba (i.e. male companions of Muhammad) found their wives engaging in sexual activities with other men. They accused their wives of adultery without presenting four male eyewitnesses.

This situation became a significant problem for Muhammad, as his male Sahaba became extremely angry about the condition of four male eyewitnesses and they refused to accept it, reaching the brink of rebellion. Muhammad needed their support for his wars and didn't want to anger them.

As a result, Muhammad had to introduce a new revelation, abrogating the earlier requirement of four male witnesses for husbands and allowing his male companions to accuse their wives of adultery openly by simply swearing in the name of Allah. However, Muhammad did not grant women the right of Li'aan in his newly revealed verse, while the poor women were unable to rebel against him and Islam.

Sahih Muslim, 1498c:

Sa'd b. Ubada said: Messenger of Allah, if I were to find with my wife a man, should I not touch him before bringing four witnesses? Allah's Messenger said: Yes. He said: By no means. By Him Who has sent you with the Truth, I would hasten with my sword to him before that.

Therefore, when Muhammad saw that the male companions were on the verge of rebellion, then he once again played the drama of new revelation, where he gave this “exception” only to the male husbands, to make an accusation of adultery against their wives even without the 4 witnesses, and they will not be lashed 80 times for Qadhf (i.e. the false accusation).

Quran 24:6-7:
Those who accuse their wives and do not have any witnesses except themselves, should swear four times in the name of God, the testimony of each such person being that he is speaking the truth, And (swear) a fifth time that if he tells a lie the curse of God be on him.

Human intellect clearly guides us, if Allah is really All-Wise, then he would have never put the ridiculous condition of 4 male eyewitnesses (who saw the penis penetrating the vagina clearly) in the first place.

And the 2nd condition of accusation is even more ridiculous than the condition of 4 male eyewitnesses, i.e. even if the wife is telling the truth, but she does not have 4 eyewitnesses, still Islam blames her for telling a lie. This means not only her testimony will be rejected, but she will also be punished brutally for telling the truth. 

Case Study 7: Killing ALL Dogs INITIALLY, but later changing the command upon Companions Protest

The command of killing dogs went through 4 stages of the trial and error method:

• 1st Stage: Initially, Muhammad commanded the killing of all dogs, regardless of their roles or appearances.
• 2nd Stage: In response to public outcry against the mass killing of dogs, then Allah (i.e. Muhammad) revised the ruling, allowing people to keep dogs for hunting and livestock protection while maintaining the directive to kill all other dogs.
• 3rd Stage: However, further protests led to another revision, whereby the Divine Allah rescinded the order to kill all other dogs, except those with black coloration. In this stage, black dogs were deemed as associated with devils.
• 4th Stage: Continuing opposition to the killing of black dogs prompted yet another revision. Then Allah (i.e. Muhammad) reversed the ruling once more, abolishing the killing of all black dogs, except for those that were jet-black with two spots on their eyes.

Throughout these four stages, the Sharia ruling regarding the killing of dogs underwent transformations due to the protests and concerns raised by the people.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2845:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 510a:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs ... Then Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty (to kill) the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil.

This is an Intriguing Contradiction in the Sharia Rulings on Dogs.

The contradiction becomes apparent when considering that if the devil was not present in dogs other than the jet-black ones with two spots on their eyes, why did Muhammad/Allah initially decree the killing of all other innocent dogs who did not possess any demonic qualities?

It is crucial to remember that a "divine revelation" should not be subject to trial and error but rather should embody the flawless wisdom of an All-Wise God from its very inception.

When examining the evolution of Islamic orders regarding alcohol, we observe a progression from leniency to strictness in three stages, reflecting an understanding of human psychology. Initially, praying while intoxicated was prohibited, followed by a complete prohibition of alcohol, and finally, the introduction of 80 lashes as punishment.

However, the case of dogs follows an opposite trajectory—orders transitioned from strict to lenient. This means that the initial decree to kill all dogs went against human psychology, and subsequent modifications were made due to the protests of people who vehemently opposed the killing of their pet dogs and advocated for the retention of dogs for hunting and guarding purposes.

Muhammad/Allah was indeed compelled to change the orders due to the intense opposition and protest from people who were unwilling to part with their beloved canine companions. This sentiment of resistance is evident in the hadith:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1573a: 

In conclusion, a divine revelation should be grounded in divine wisdom rather than relying on a trial-and-error approach.

Case Study 8: Allah didn't know INITIALLY that Companions of Muhammad could not control their Sexual Desires for 30 nights of Ramadan

Allah first outlawed sex with wives on Ramadan nights.

But this order was quite contrary to human character. Not even the companions, who were meant to be models of pure faith, could live up to this artificial standard. As a result, they started covertly visiting their spouses throughout the nights of Ramadan, including the well-known companion Umar Ibn Khattab. Allah (i.e., Muhammad) came to see the need of a modification after knowing the impossibility of implementing such a restriction and the complexity of punishing all the offenders without inciting opposition.

Muhammad said a fresh verse had revealed itself, nullifying the past ban on sex during Ramadan nights instead of punishing Umar and others.

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:187):

“It is made lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Siyam (fasting). They are Libas (i.e., body-cover, or screen) for you and you are Libas for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves (by going to wives secretly), so He turned to you and forgave you (for this sin). So now you are allowed to have sexual relations with your wives.

Ibn Kathir wrote under the commentary of this verse (link):

 Ibn `Abbas said, "During the month of Ramadan, after Muslims would pray `Isha', they would not touch their women and food until the next night. Then some Muslims, including `Umar bin Al-Khattab, touched (had sex with) their wives and had some food during Ramadan after `Isha'. They complained to Allah's Messenger ﷺ . Then Allah sent down (the verse 8:66): (Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them)"

Ask yourself this if Allah knew that humans would struggle to control themselves for the 30 nights of Ramadan, why didn't He make it permissible from the start? There is no logical reason for initially prohibiting it. Did Allah initially fear that making it permissible would lead the companions to rebel against it?

Case Study 9: The Command to Give Charity Before Speaking to the Messenger in Private and Its Abrogation

The companions were curious about Muhammad's new religion and had many questions. However, Muhammad became overwhelmed by the constant questioning. To curb the excessive inquiries, Muhammad introduced a new condition: the companions had to give a sum in charity before asking their questions.

(Quran 58:12) O believers! When you wish to speak to the Messenger in private, give charity beforehand. This is better for you and purer. But if you lack the means, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

However, the companions valued their wealth more than spending it to learn about Islam. They stopped visiting Muhammad and asking questions. When Muhammad realized that the companions were no longer coming to him and he was losing his influence over them, he claimed the revelation of a new verse, which abrogated the condition of giving charity before asking questions.

(Quran 58:13) Is it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your private consultation (with him)? If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you, then (at least) establish regular prayer; practise regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. 

In the commentary on this verse, Tafsir Dur-e-Mansur includes the following narration:

Ibn Munzir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Marduwaih narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse "when you consult the Messenger privately" was revealed because the Muslims were asking the Messenger many questions, which made the situation difficult for him. Allah wanted to lighten this burden on His Prophet, so He commanded them to give charity before consulting him privately. When Allah revealed this command, many people refrained from asking questions and seeking advice. Consequently, Allah revealed the verse "Are you hesitant..." thereby lifting this restriction and easing their burden.

The point is, if there truly were an Allah who knows everything, He would have known in advance that the companions would not pay money for this task, and He would not have set such a condition. However, since there is no such entity as Allah, and Muhammad himself claimed the revelation of verses, these "human errors" appear in the revelations.

Case Study 10: The Abrogation of Azl (عزل Coitus Interruptus)

This case study examines the shifting theological rulings on Azl (withdrawal during intercourse) as a primary example of how Islamic "revelation" often mirrored the evolving socio-political needs of the early Muslim community rather than reflecting a fixed divine will.

In the early stages of his mission, Muhammad’s rulings often reflected the influence of existing Judeo-Christian traditions. During this period, he condemned Azl, labeling it a "hidden" form of infanticide. This view aligned with the contemporary Jewish belief that preventing conception was akin to destroying a potential life.

Sahih Muslim, 1442b:

Judama bint Wahb reported: I heard the Prophet saying: I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women, but I considered the Greeks and Persians, and saw that they suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to them (to the suckling women). Then they asked him about 'azl, whereupon he said. That is the secret (way of) burying alive

This narration is particularly revealing because it shows Muhammad openly admitting that his "intended" prohibitions were based on personal observation and the customs of surrounding empires (Greeks and Persians) rather than divine instruction.

However, as the Muslim community transitioned from a religious minority to a dominant military force, the dynamics of sex and property changed. Following successful expeditions, Muslim fighters came into possession of numerous captive women.

The soldiers faced a practical and financial dilemma:

• They were away from their wives and sought sexual gratification through the women they had captured.

• These captives were "property" intended to be sold back for high ransom. A pregnant woman was considered "damaged goods" in the slave market, significantly reducing her resale value.

• There was a desire to keep these women from the physical changes of pregnancy to ensure they remained "attractive" for continued sexual use or for sale.

To solve this, the companions resorted to Azl to enjoy the women without the "risk" of pregnancy. However, this directly conflicted with Muhammad’s earlier ruling that Azl was equivalent to murder.

Faced with the dissatisfaction of his soldiers, Muhammad abrogated his previous stance. He provided a new "theological" loophole that allowed the companions to satisfy their sexual urges while protecting their financial interests.

Sahih Muslim, Kitab-ul-Nikah (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Qadr (link), Sahih Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Tauheed (link):

0 Abu Sa'id al-Khadri said: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired (to have sex with) them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but we also desired good ransom money by selling them). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (i.e. withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception so that they don’t become pregnant and could be sold for good ransom money). But then we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: (Yes, it is allowed, but) it does not matter if you do it or not, while if any soul has to be born up to the Day of Resurrection, then it will be born.

The shift in these rulings highlights a profound logical inconsistency:

•  If Azl is "hidden infanticide" (murder) when practiced with a free wife, why does it cease to be murder when practiced with a captive woman?

• The biological process of conception does not change based on the legal status (free or slave) of the mother.

• The argument that "if a soul is destined to be born, it will be" serves as a convenient theological cover. If destiny determines everything, then the initial prohibition of Azl as "murder" would have been unnecessary from the start.

Thus, the transition from "hidden murder" to "permitted practice" was not a result of new biological insight, but a reaction to the spoils of war.

Case Study 11: The Abrogation of Salvation for the "People of the Book" (From Promises of Paradise to Threats of Eternal Hell)

A study of religions reveals that most systems emphasize "Creed" (Aqidah) over "Action." According to these doctrines, if one's theological belief is not "correct," even the most virtuous deeds remain unacceptable to God. Thus, eternal salvation becomes a matter of belonging to the right group rather than the purity of one's intent or conduct.

In contrast, human reason dictates that "Intent and Action" should be the primary criteria for judgment, regardless of one's specific creed. While a specific creed does not guarantee a moral society, the cultivation of right intent and ethical action is the only true foundation for a functional and ideal community.

Islamic Apologists present specific early Quranic verses to argue that Islam is inclusive and that virtuous non-Muslims will be rewarded:

(Quran 5:69): "Surely, those who believe, and those who are the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

A similar sentiment is echoed in:

(Quran 2:62): "Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

These early verses raise significant questions:

1. Why did "Allah" restrict this mention of virtuous deeds only to the People of the Book (Jews/Christians/Sabians)?

2. If a Polytheist (Mushrik) performs a virtuous act with pure intentions, why should they still face "fear and grief" in the afterlife?

3. Does this not contradict the very concept of "Divine Justice"?

As Muhammad moved to Medina, where (contrary to Muhammad's hopes) the Jews and Christians started opposing him, then Muhammad became angry. Consequently, the earlier promises of Jews/Christians going to paradise were abrogated.

According to Tafsir al-Qurtubi and Dur al-Manthur, the great Sahabi Ibn Abbas narrated that the inclusive message of the earlier verses was canceled by later revelations:

(Tafsir al-Qurtubi 2:62): "It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse 'Surely those who believe and those who are Jews...' was abrogated by the verse 'And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him' (3:85)."

The later "Abrogating" verses declare:

(Quran 98:6): "Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture and the Idolaters will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures."

(Quran 3:85): "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Afterlife, he will be among the losers."

Who could have performed better deeds than Abu Talib? He provided a level of protection and support to the Prophet that no other companion could match. Yet, the traditions state that despite his noble intent and unparalleled actions, Abu Talib’s brain will be boiling in the fire of Hell.

Here, the "Divine" appears to go back on its own contract. Initially, when the Muslim community was weak, "Allah" offered the virtuous People of the Book a future free of grief and fear. However, when the Jews/Christians opposed Muhammad instead of accepting him a true prophet, those same virtuous individuals were condemned to eternal hellfire. This shift suggests that the revelation was not a consistent divine decree, but a reflection of the changing power dynamics of the era.

Case Study 12: Weak Islam vs. Peaceful Verses, Strong Islam vs. Aggressive Verses

As long as Islam remained helpless in the city of Mecca (and during the early years of Medina) and its numerical strength was low, its voice remained quiet. During this period of weakness, the Quran lectured on equality, justice, fairness, and social welfare among the pagans. It responded to insults with prayers and met oppression with kindness.

However, as soon as Islam gained power in the Medinan life after the Battle of Badr or the Battle of the Trench, that same Quranic voice grew loud. Now this voice included thunder, warnings, threats, challenges to the pagans, and calls to combat. Let us compare the Quranic verses from the period of weakness with the Quranic verses from the period of power:

#	Meccan / Early Medinan Verses (When Islam was weak)	Later Medinan Verses (When Islam became powerful)
1	There is no compulsion in religion. (2:256)	O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you. (9:123)
2	And be patient over what they say and avoid them with a gracious avoidance. (73:10)	I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike them upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip. (8:12)
3	For you is your religion, and for me is my religion. (109:6)	And whoever desires other than Islam as religion, never will it be accepted from him. (3:85)
4	Speak to people good words. (2:83)	Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. (9:5)
5	And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them entirely. Then, would you compel the people in order that they become believers? (10:99)	And fight them until there is no discord and the religion of Allah is established. (2:193)
6	We know best what they say, and you are not over them a tyrant to compel them. (50:45)	Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them. (9:14)
7	And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best and say, "Our God and your God is one." (29:46)	Fight those who do not believe in Allah until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. (9:29)
8	Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabians who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. (2:62)	The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah." May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? (9:30)
9	Show forgiveness, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the ignorant. (7:199)	O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their year. (9:28)
10	The Hour is surely coming, so overlook them with gracious forgiveness. (15:85)	He will gulp it but will hardly be able to swallow it. And death will come to him from everywhere, but he is not to die. And before him is a massive punishment. (14:17)
11	And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. (6:108)	Then whoever argues with you say, "Come let us pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars." (3:61)
12	So turn away from them and say, "Peace." For they are going to know. (43:89)	So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds. (47:4)
13	You are not over them one to compel them. So remind with the Quran whoever fears My threat. (50:45)	O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty who are steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you a hundred, they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved. (8:65)
14	Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives (Muslim and non-Muslim). (16:90)	Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever of you does that has nothing with Allah. (3:28)
15	Tell those who have believed to forgive those (non-Muslims) who do not expect the days of Allah. (45:14)	And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah. (8:60)

Anyone who looks closely at this table realizes the reality that the ethical direction of the Quran was determined not by divine wisdom, but by the balance of political power. When Muhammad was weak, revelation taught tolerance, patience, and peace. When he became powerful, that same revelation began ordering killing, jizyah, and the humiliation of disbelievers.

The defense of "gradual revelation" fails here as well. If this were truly a gradual disclosure of divine wisdom, we would see a consistent theological direction. Instead, the shift from tolerance to intolerance, from peace to war, and from "to you your religion" to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" happened at exactly the same pace as the growth of Muhammad's military strength.

In world history, every imperialist power has taken this path: preaching peace in weakness and practicing war and oppression in power. The only difference is that other imperialist powers made this change in their own name. Here, this change occurred in the name of Allah and under the veil of revelation.

Case Study 13: Abrogation of War Ethics (The Journey from Da'wah to Night Raids)

This case study examines how war regulations and ethical principles were nullified as Islamic military power grew, making the acquisition of war booty and the suppression of enemies easier.

In the early period of Islam, it was a settled ethical principle that before attacking any non-Muslim tribe, they would be given three options: to accept Islam, to pay Jizyah, or to prepare for war. This period of notice lasted at least three days so that no human life would be lost without cause.

However, once the Muslims achieved complete military superiority later on, these ancient ethical restrictions were abolished for the sake of obtaining war booty. The most prominent example of this is the attack on the tribe of Banu al-Mustaliq, which was carried out while they were in a state of total negligence.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Manumission (Link) and Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad and Expeditions (Link):

Ibn 'Aun said that he wrote to Nafi' asking whether it was necessary to invite the disbelievers to Islam before attacking them. To this, Nafi' replied that this was in the early days of Islam, but later on, the Messenger attacked Banu al-Mustaliq while they were in a state of negligence (meaning no invitation was given) and their cattle were drinking water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken captive.

This narration clarifies that the stage of "inviting to Islam" had now been abrogated and the objective was solely victory and war booty.

Similarly, in the early period, the killing of women and children was strictly prohibited. However, when sudden attacks in the darkness of night (night raids) began against settlements, the loss of innocent lives became inevitable. When questions were raised about this, the nature of revelation took a new turn.

Sahih Bukhari, Book of Jihad and Expeditions (Link):

Sa'b bin Jaththama narrates that the Prophet passed by me at Al-Abwa or Waddan and he was asked about the households of the polytheists who are raided at night, resulting in the killing of their women and children. He said, "They are from them." Then he said, "There is no Hima (grazing land) except for Allah and His Messenger."

This single sentence ended all the ethical barriers that previously existed for the protection of innocent lives. Now, attacking any settlement before dawn and targeting every living being present there was declared permissible.

"Hima" (Grazing Land) as a Symbol of Power in Arabian Society:

In the ancient Arabian tribal economy, "Hima" was not just a grazing field; it was a symbol of power. Hima referred to protected pastures and areas that tribes reserved exclusively for their own livestock, not allowing the cattle of any other tribe to graze there.

Capturing the Hima of another tribe or expanding the boundaries of one's own Hima was a clear political declaration that the occupying tribe was now more powerful and influential.

The attack by Muhammad on the fertile lands of Banu al-Mustaliq and the seizure of their Hima was the implementation of that same ancient law of the jungle from the days of ignorance (Might is Right). However, Muhammad merely gave this law of war a religious color by claiming that the attack and seizure of the lands and Hima of non-Muslims are permissible because all grazing lands belong to Allah and His Messenger.

Therefore, the attack on the non-Muslim Banu al-Mustaliq, who were living in peace, was not carried out for any defensive purpose or for the sake of promoting religion. Instead, it was conducted solely under the ancient Arabian law of the jungle for the purpose of seizing grazing lands.

The Gradual Revelation Defence: A Final Assessment

Before the conclusion, it is worth addressing the gradual revelation defence one final time in light of all the case studies above.

The defence works reasonably well for a small number of abrogations where the direction of change is genuinely progressive, as in the case of the alcohol prohibition, which moved in stages from a partial restriction to a complete ban. That pattern is at least consistent with the idea of a community being prepared gradually for stricter standards.

But the gradual revelation defence fails completely for every case study documented in this article. Consider what the cases above actually show.

The 1:10 ratio was not gradually adjusted downward over years of careful development. It was abrogated within the same sitting in direct response to companion protest. The dog-killing ruling was not progressively refined over time. It went through four iterations of revision, each one prompted by protest and each one moving toward leniency, i.e., exactly the opposite direction the gradual revelation defence predicts. The Ramadan sex prohibition was not a carefully staged test of discipline. It was universally violated, including by prominent companions, and then quietly reversed. The charity-before-consultation rule backfired so immediately that it was reversed within the same Quranic passage. The Qibla changed not in response to any theological development in the community's understanding, but in precise correspondence with the failure of a specific political strategy.

None of these fit the profile of wise gradual revelation. All of them fit the profile of a human legislator issuing rules, observing the consequences, and adjusting when the consequences were undesirable. The gradual revelation defence is a framework that works only when applied selectively to the cases that support it. Applied honestly to the full record, it collapses.

Conclusion: What the Pattern Proves

The doctrine of Naskh was developed by Muslim scholars to explain an uncomfortable feature of their holy book, i.e., it contradicts itself. Their solution was to say that later verses cancel earlier ones, and that this was part of Allah's plan all along.

But this solution creates a larger problem than the one it solves. If Allah planned all along to cancel certain verses, then those cancelled verses were never meant to be permanent divine guidance. They were temporary placeholders, revealed not because they were true for all time but because they were useful for a particular moment. And in every case documented in this article, the moment they were useful for was a moment in Muhammad's personal and political life.

The pattern across all four case studies is identical. A ruling is issued. It creates a specific problem for Muhammad, whether a military crisis, a legal difficulty, a political failure, or a threat to his authority. A new ruling then appears that resolves that specific problem. The new ruling never creates new difficulties for Muhammad. It never fails to resolve the immediate crisis. It never arrives before the problem or after it has already been resolved by other means. It always arrives during the crisis and always solves it exactly.

This is not the profile of divine revelation. It is the profile of a very capable human leader writing his way through a series of crises, adjusting his text as circumstances demanded, and attributing each adjustment to God in order to maintain his authority over his followers.

The Quran's own words about abrogation confirm this reading. Verse 2:106 presents abrogation as Allah bringing forth something "better" to replace what was cancelled. But in case after case, what actually happened was not that a better ruling replaced a good one. What happened was that an unworkable ruling was replaced by a workable one, an unpopular ruling was replaced by a popular one, and a politically damaging ruling was replaced by a politically convenient one. That is not improvement in the divine sense. That is crisis management in the human sense.

The Most IMPORTANT Case Studies: 

The case studies above are strong evidence that the Quran was authored by a human responding to real-time crises. But the following 4 articles present what are arguably the most damaging case studies of all, each one exposing a different and critical dimension of how Naskh served Muhammad's personal agenda.

They are not included directly in this article for a simple reason, i.e., each one is a detailed, fully sourced investigation in its own right, too long to summarize without losing the force of the argument. We strongly recommend reading each one as a standalone article. Together with the case studies above, they complete the full picture..

• Naskh: Abrogations to Fulfil Muhammad's Sexual Desires

  This is perhaps the single most revealing article on the entire subject of Naskh. It documents eleven separate Quranic rulings on marriage and women, each one appearing at precisely the moment Muhammad faced a specific personal marital problem, and each one resolving that problem in his favor. The rulings cover everything from bypassing the four-wife limit, to silencing his wives' protests, to making slave women lawful for himself again after his companions objected. Even his own wife Aisha sarcastically remarked that Allah seemed to be in a great hurry to fulfill Muhammad's desires. This article is essential reading.

• Naskh: The Abrogation of the Satanic Verses

  This case study is unique because it documents an abrogation driven not by political pressure from outside but by a theological disaster of Muhammad's own making. He accidentally praised the pagan goddesses of Mecca during a recitation of the Quran, then claimed Satan had deceived him, then issued multiple new verses to manage the fallout and restore his credibility. Every Muslim scholar for the first 200 to 300 years of Islamic history accepted this incident as genuine. Only later, when the theological implications became too damaging to acknowledge, did scholars begin denying it entirely. This article shows both the original incident and the cover-up in full detail.

• Naskh: The Prohibition of Alcohol

  The gradual prohibition of alcohol is often cited by Muslims as the clearest example of wise and compassionate gradual revelation. This article examines the actual historical record behind each stage of the prohibition and reveals something very different. The timing of each stage tracks not the spiritual development of the community but specific incidents in which drunk companions embarrassed or insulted Muhammad. The final complete prohibition came not from timeless divine wisdom but from a specific political humiliation that Muhammad needed to prevent from recurring. This article dismantles one of the most commonly used defences of Naskh as divine wisdom.

• Naskh: The Permission to Brutally Beat and Slap Wives

  This article documents two separate abrogations, both driven by male companion pressure and both reversing protections Muhammad had initially given to women. First, Muhammad initially prohibited wife-beating entirely. When male companions complained that women had become emboldened and were resisting abuse, Muhammad reversed the ruling and permitted beating again. Second, Muhammad initially forbade slapping wives on the face and even declared retaliation permissible for a woman whose husband had slapped her. Then verse 4:34 was revealed, removing her right to retaliation entirely. After this second reversal, Muhammad himself said: "I intended one thing, and Allah intended another." That phrase, recorded by multiple classical scholars in their commentaries on verse 4:34, is one of the most candid admissions of human authorship anywhere in the Islamic tradition.