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

What Is Naskh?

In Islamic theology, Naskh (النسخ) means abrogation, i.e., the cancellation or replacement of one Quranic verse by another revealed later. The doctrine acknowledges that Allah issued a ruling, then changed it. Muslims accept this as part of divine wisdom, arguing that God reveals rules gradually, adjusting them to suit the needs of a developing community.

The Quran itself acknowledges this process:

(Quran 2:106): "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

(Quran 16:101): "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse, and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down, they say: You are but an inventor of lies. But most of them do not know."

The doctrine of Naskh is not invented by critics of Islam. It is confirmed by the Quran itself and elaborated in enormous detail by Muslim scholars over fourteen centuries. What critics have always asked, however, is a simple question, i.e., if Allah is omniscient, why did He need to change His mind?

How Many Abrogations Are There?

Muslim scholars have disagreed dramatically on this question, and their disagreement is itself revealing. Some classical scholars counted only a handful of abrogations. Others counted over 500. The medieval scholar Ibn al-Jawzi listed 247. Al-Suyuti, one of the most influential classical scholars, documented 21 clear abrogations but acknowledged many more disputed cases. Shah Waliullah of Delhi, writing in the 18th century, tried to reduce the number to just 5.

This enormous disagreement about how many verses of their own holy book have been cancelled is significant. It reveals that Ilm al-Naskh, the science of abrogation, is not an objective discipline producing consistent results. Like Ilm al-Hadith, it is a field where scholars reached contradictory conclusions using the same methodology, because the methodology was never truly objective. It was always shaped by what conclusion a particular scholar needed to reach.

The Standard Islamic Defence of Naskh and Why It Fails

Muslim scholars offer three main defences of abrogation.

The gradual revelation defence holds that Allah revealed rules in stages, suited to the developing maturity of the early Muslim community. Just as a doctor adjusts a patient's prescription as their condition changes, Allah adjusted his rulings as circumstances evolved.

The mercy defence holds that some abrogations replaced harsh rulings with more lenient ones, demonstrating divine compassion.

The wisdom defence holds that Allah in his infinite wisdom knew that certain rulings would only be appropriate for specific times and circumstances, and abrogating them was a pre-planned adjustment rather than a mistake.

These defences have been repeated for centuries and many Muslims find them satisfying. But they all share one critical weakness. They require us to accept that an omniscient God, who knows all things across all time, repeatedly issued rulings that needed to be corrected shortly afterward, and that each correction happened to align perfectly with the specific political, military, social, or personal problem Muhammad was facing at that exact moment.

More importantly, the gradual revelation defence only works as an explanation when the direction of change is consistent, moving steadily from easy to strict as the community matures, or from strict to lenient as a sign of mercy. But many abrogations documented in this article show neither pattern. They show a reactive pattern, i.e., a ruling is issued, people protest or rebel, and a new ruling immediately appears that gives them exactly what they demanded. That is not divine pedagogy. That is a human leader backing down under pressure.

The Three-Feature Pattern That Exposes the Truth

When the full record of Quranic abrogation is examined systematically, three consistent features emerge across every case.

First, the trigger is always a human problem. Every significant abrogation was preceded by a specific, identifiable crisis, i.e., a military defeat, a failed political alliance, a personal desire, a public embarrassment, or a threat to Muhammad's authority. The new verse always appeared after the crisis, never before it.

Second, the new verse always solves Muhammad's immediate problem. If abrogation was genuinely driven by timeless divine wisdom gradually unfolding, we would expect to find at least some cases where the new verse created a new difficulty for Muhammad, or failed to resolve the immediate crisis, or addressed a problem that had not yet arisen. We find no such cases.

Third, the timeline always matches. The new verse does not arrive years before the problem or years after. It arrives during the crisis or immediately after. An omniscient God who pre-plans everything has no reason to time revelations so precisely to match earthly events. A human author responding to real-time pressures has every reason to do so.

The case studies that follow demonstrate this pattern across four entirely different domains, i.e., military management, daily law, political strategy, and divine omniscience. No single case proves the argument on its own. The cumulative pattern across all four does.

Table of Contents:

Case Study 1: The Qibla Change 

It's well known that Muhammad changed the Qibla from Bayt al-Muqaddas (Jerusalem) to the Kaaba due to his conflict with the Jews. However, beyond this, there are deeper, less-discussed aspects that further reveal the contradictions in his actions.

Since Muhammad claimed that his new religion was a continuation of the God of the Jews and Christians, he initially performed the Qibla change in Mecca and commanded his followers to pray facing Bayt al-Muqaddas (Arabic: بيت المقدس‎) in Jerusalem, instead of the Kaaba. Upon reaching Medina, Muhammad further adopted many Jewish laws and practices to please the Jews of Medina, like:

• Dietary Laws: Influenced by Kosher rules he started Halal rules.
• Adultery Punishment: Initially stoning (Leviticus 20:10), later modified to 100 lashes in the Quran, though Hadiths retained stoning.
• Usury (Riba): Islam, like Judaism, banned interest, later enforcing stricter rules.
• Legal Punishments (Qisas): Adopted "eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:23-25).
• Ritual Purification: Ablution (wudu) similar to Jewish Mikvah before prayer.
• Prohibition of Images: Forbade making images similar to Judaism (Exodus 20:4).
• Circumcision: Muhammad also copied this practice from Jews (Genesis 17:10-14

etc. 

However, he soon faced complete failure, as the Jews did not accept his claim of prophethood and instead labeled him a false prophet.

Thus began the enmity with the Jews, leading to the abrogation of Bayt al-Muqaddas (in Jerusalem) as the Qibla, reinstating the Kaaba (in Mecca) as the Qibla.

People then perceived that Muhammad was angered by the Jews' refusal to accept him as a prophet, and in retaliation, he changed the Qibla. In response to this criticism, Muhammad called these critics "fools" in the Quran. The Quran mentions it as follows:

Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayat 143 to 146:

The foolish among the people will say, "What has turned them away from their Qibla, which they used to face?" ... We only appointed the Qibla which you used to face to see who would follow the Messenger and who would turn back on his heels.

Consequently, people (including Muslims) began to question what kind of God this was and what kind of wisdom it was that first directed them to face the Kaaba, then changed the Qibla to Jerusalem, and then, just after 15 months, due to the Jews' hostility, decided to change it back to the Kaaba.

It was impossible for the author of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad) to adequately answer this objection. Therefore, to silence these critics, Muhammad addressed them in the Quran as "fools." He then presented the excuse that Allah wanted to see who would turn back on his heels.

This is an extremely strange excuse, implying that:

• Allah changed the Qibla twice just to see some people turn back.
• The most interesting point is that history did not record even a single person who turned away from Islam due to the Qibla change.

Thus, the question remains for Muslims: if not a single person was to turn away from Islam because of the Qibla change, what was the need for Allah to change the Qibla twice? It is clear that Muhammad used Allah's name to express his personal enmity towards the Jews.

Just think, if there really were an All-Knowing and All-Wise Allah in the heavens, who possessed knowledge of the future, would He orchestrate such a drama of changing the Qibla twice?

And would He insult people by calling them "fools and idiots" when they were rightly questioning the absurdity of these two pointless Qibla changes?

Do these dramas of changing the Qibla twice not seem more like "human errors" rather than divine revelations to you?

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

After the Battle of Uhud, in which the Sahabah abandoned their positions and fled, Allah issued a solemn warning in the Quran that any believer who turned his back on the battlefield would earn divine wrath and eternal hellfire:

(Quran 8:15-16): O believers, when you face the disbelievers in battle, do not turn your backs to them. And whoever does so on such an occasion, unless it is a strategic retreat or joining another fighting force, will certainly incur the wrath of Allah, and Hell will be their home. What an evil destination.

This was not a mild suggestion. It was an explicit divine covenant with a specific and severe consequence attached to it.

At the Battle of Hunayn (8 AH), the Sahabah broke this covenant. Despite Muhammad's calls to hold their ground, they fled the battlefield in panic. The Quran itself confirms this without ambiguity:

(Quran 9:25): Allah has already given you victory in many regions and on the day of Hunayn, when your great numbers pleased you, but they did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness. Then you turned back, fleeing.

According to Allah's own covenant in 8:15-16, every companion who fled at Hunayn had now earned divine wrath and was destined for Hell. Yet instead of enforcing his promise, Allah issued a verse of forgiveness:

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

The Quran's own words stand in direct contradiction to each other. Allah promised wrath and Hell for those who fled. The Sahabah fled. Allah then forgave them. The same book that declares "you will never find any change in Allah's way (48:23)" and "who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah (9:111)" contains within its own pages a sequence in which Allah issues a covenant and then does not keep it.

The Repentance Defence and Why It Fails:

The most common Muslim response to this argument is straightforward. Allah did not break his covenant. The Sahabah repented sincerely after Hunayn, and Allah's mercy always supersedes his warnings when a sinner genuinely repents. This is consistent throughout the Quran, which repeatedly emphasizes that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. The forgiveness after Hunayn was therefore not a broken promise but a demonstration of divine mercy in response to genuine repentance.

This defence sounds reasonable at first. But it collapses the moment you apply it to the attribute of divine omniscience, which Islam itself insists upon. If Allah is truly All-Knowing, then before he issued the warning in verse 8:15-16, he already knew with absolute certainty three things simultaneously, i.e., that the Sahabah would flee at Hunayn, that they would then repent, and that he would therefore forgive them. He knew the entire sequence from eternity before a single word of the threat was revealed.

This creates a devastating logical problem. If Allah knew from eternity that the threat would never be enforced because repentance would follow, then why issue the threat at all? A threat that the one issuing it already knows will never be carried out is not a genuine threat. It is theater. It serves no meaningful purpose as a deterrent, because the deterrent was never going to work, and the one issuing it knew this before he issued it.

This problem does not exist if we understand the Quran as the work of a human author. Muhammad issued the threat in 8:15-16 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 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. A human leader responding to real events in real time would behave exactly this way. 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.

The Linguistic Proof of Human Authorship:

The problem in verse 8:66 goes deeper than the abrogation itself. The Arabic phrase at the heart of the verse is:

وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا

Translated literally, this means "and He has come to know that in you there is weakness."

The verb عَلِمَ (alima) in Arabic describes the acquisition of new knowledge, i.e., becoming aware of something previously unknown. Applied to Allah, it directly contradicts the Islamic doctrine that Allah is Al-Alim, the All-Knowing, who possesses complete and unchanging knowledge of all things from the beginning of creation.

Islamic theology holds explicitly that Allah's knowledge does not increase or develop over time, because He already knows everything. There is no moment at which He "comes to know" something He did not know before. Yet that is precisely what the Arabic of this verse says.

Modern Muslim translators have recognized this problem and attempted to solve it through mistranslation. Common distorted renderings include "He knew that in you there is weakness" and "He has known there is weakness in you." All of these change the tense and meaning of the Arabic verb to remove the implication of newly acquired knowledge. They are grammatically incorrect translations of the original Arabic.

If Allah truly knew from eternity that the companions were too weak to face a 1:10 ratio, He would never have issued that command in verse 8:65. The fact that verse 8:66 says He "came to know" of their weakness is a direct admission that He did not know it before. The most parsimonious explanation is that a human author wrote verse 8:65, misjudged the companions' reaction, and then wrote verse 8:66 to walk back the earlier demand, using the word alima to describe his own updated understanding of the situation.

Case Study 4: Ten times Breastfeeding verse abrogated later by 5 times 

One wonders:

• What is the logic behind the abrogation of the verse regarding 10 times breastfeeding? 
• Why wasn't the verse about five breastfeeding sessions revealed the first time instead of ten?

The background story:

• Firstly, Muhammad declared that an adopted son will become non-Mahram to his foster mother after becoming an Adult. This broke many families. Moreover, Muhammad also allowed foster fathers to marry their minor adopted daughters for their beauty and wealth without their consent. 
• Secondly, Muhammad also strictly forbade any interaction between women and non-Mahram men, which again caused a lot of practical problems in daily lives. 

Consequently, Muhammad found one solution, where he asked a woman to breastfeed an adult man to become Mahram.

However, it was a shameful practice that an adult man breastfed a woman. It seems, to avoid the inconvenience, Muhammad later reduced the number of suckling from 10 to 5. Please see this tradition:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1453a:

One still wonders:

• Would companions have rebelled against Allah if he had revealed the verse of 5 times suckling right in the START?

• If any ruling is abrogated due to any "wisdom" or "need", then one can understand such abrogation. However, there seems absolutely neither any wisdom, nor any need for not sending the verse 5 times in the first go. 

However, the above tradition gives hint about the "need" of changing 10 times suckling to 5 times:

• This SMILE/LAUGH by Muhammad indicates that the milk was indeed drunk directly from the breasts. Abud Hudhaifa and Sahla was concerned and hesitant about this, but Muhammad found the situation amusing and laughed.

• And perhaps Muhammad had to later reduce it from 10 to 5, while men indeed found it "disgusting" that their wives let grown men suckle them. 

Please read all details here: Breastfeeding Adults: Survival of AHADITH due to adult's breastfeeding

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?

Zihar vs marrying the wife of the Adopted son:

Islam presents a perplexing contrast in its reasoning. On one hand, according to Islamic logic, if a man repeatedly refers to someone as his son, even after adopting him, that child cannot be considered a Mahram to his foster mother. Consequently, a foster mother must be separated from her adopted son as soon as he reaches adulthood, resulting in the son being expelled from the household,  as he could no longer stay under one roof with his foster mother. 

On the other hand, Islam dictates that if a husband compares his wife to his mother orally once (even in anger), it leads to an immediate and permanent divorce. And this can be overturn only if the husband agrees to take her back, and Allah still persist in addressing it through various penalties. 

These contradictions epitomize double standards and reach the height of absurdity.

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 commads 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

Initially, Allah prohibited sex with wives during the nights of Ramadan.

However, this command was completely against human nature. Even the companions, who were supposed to be exemplars of true faith, could not adhere to this unnatural rule. Consequently, they began secretly visiting their wives during the nights of Ramadan, including the prominent companion Umar Ibn Khattab.

Realizing the impracticality of enforcing such a restriction and the difficulty of punishing all the violators without causing dissent, Allah (i.e., Muhammad) recognized the need for a change. Instead of punishing Umar and others, Muhammad claimed the revelation of a new verse, which abrogated the previous prohibition of sex during the nights of Ramadan.

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.

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.