If Allah make a verse or rule forgotten, then its effectiveness is ended or deleted

 If Allah make a verse or rule forgotten, then its effectiveness is ended or deleted

Your question is fundamental: if Allah causes a verse to be forgotten or removes it, does its legal effectiveness also end, or can the wording disappear while the ruling remains effective?

The Qur’an and the traditional Sunni doctrine address these as two distinct possibilities.

1. What does the Qur’an say?

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:106:

مَا نَنْسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنْسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا

“Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or similar to it.”

The key expression is:

أَوْ نُنْسِهَا — aw nunsi-hā

“Or cause it to be forgotten.”

The verse mentions abrogating a verse or causing it to be forgotten, followed by bringing something better or similar. It does not explicitly say that a verse’s wording may be removed while its legal ruling remains in force.

2. Three possibilities

Possibility	Meaning
Abrogation of wording and ruling	The text is no longer recited as Qur’an, and its legal ruling also ends.
Abrogation of wording but continuation of ruling	The text is no longer recited as Qur’an, but its legal ruling remains applicable.
Abrogation of ruling while wording remains	The verse remains in the Qur’an, but its earlier legal command is no longer operative.

Traditional Sunni jurisprudence recognizes all three categories in its theoretical discussions, although scholars differ about particular examples and the evidence for them.

3. Applying this to the alleged rajm verse

ʿUmar’s report in Sahih Muslim 1691a is commonly interpreted by traditional Sunni scholars as an example of the second category: the alleged verse’s recitation ended, but its legal ruling remained in force through the Sunnah.

However, notice the distinction:

• The Qur’an 2:106 does not explicitly identify rajm as an example.

• ʿUmar’s report does not explicitly narrate when or how Allah abrogated the verse’s recitation.

• The doctrine that the wording was abrogated while the ruling remained is the traditional scholarly explanation connecting these reports.

4. Your argument

If your reasoning is that when Allah causes a verse to be forgotten, its effectiveness should also end, that is a coherent question to raise. But it is not an inevitable grammatical consequence of the word نُنْسِهَا (“cause it to be forgotten”). The verse does not explicitly state that the ruling must end in every such case.

The stronger textual question is this: Where does revelation explicitly establish that the wording of the alleged rajm verse was withdrawn while its legal ruling remained?

The traditional Sunni answer relies on the combined interpretation of the hadith reports and the doctrine of abrogation. The Qur’anic verse alone does not spell out that particular case.

Allah brought verse of lashes instead of rajam so rajam is invalid and lashes is valid

Your argument is understandable from a Qur’an-centred perspective: Allah explicitly prescribed 100 lashes in the Qur’an, whereas rajm (stoning to death) is not explicitly prescribed in the Qur’an’s present text. The key question is whether Qur’an 2:106 establishes that the lashes replaced rajm.

1. What the Qur’an explicitly says

Surah An-Nur 24:2

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ

“The woman who commits unlawful sexual intercourse and the man who commits unlawful sexual intercourse—lash each of them one hundred lashes.”

The verse explicitly commands 100 lashes. It does not explicitly state that married offenders must be stoned, nor does it expressly exempt married offenders from the stated punishment.

2. Does Qur’an 2:106 establish that rajm was replaced?

Allah says:

مَا نَنْسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنْسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا

“Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or similar to it.”

Your reasoning is that if the alleged verse of rajm was removed or caused to be forgotten, Allah’s replacement should govern. Since the Qur’an explicitly prescribes lashes, you infer that rajm is no longer valid.

The limitation is that 2:106 does not identify the alleged rajm verse as the verse being abrogated, nor explicitly say that 24:2 replaced it. That connection is your interpretation, rather than something expressly stated in the two verses.

3. Why does traditional Sunni jurisprudence reach a different conclusion?

Traditional Sunni jurists interpret the evidence differently:

• Qur’an 24:2 prescribes lashes for unmarried offenders.

• Hadith reports describe the Prophet ﷺ applying rajm to qualifying married offenders.

• The report of ʿUmar in Sahih Muslim 1691a is understood by them as evidence that the recitation of an earlier rajm verse was abrogated while its legal ruling remained.

Their conclusion therefore depends on accepting the relevant hadith evidence and the doctrine that a ruling can remain after its wording is no longer recited as Qur’an.

4. What can be concluded directly from the Qur’an?

Proposition	Textual status
The Qur’an explicitly prescribes 100 lashes in 24:2.	Explicit
The Qur’an’s present text explicitly prescribes rajm for adultery.	No
Qur’an 2:106 explicitly says rajm was replaced by lashes.	No
The conclusion that lashes are the sole prescribed punishment follows from a Qur’an-centred interpretation.	Yes, as an interpretation; it is disputed by traditional Sunni jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Your position can be stated precisely as follows:

“Since the Qur’an explicitly prescribes 100 lashes for unlawful sexual intercourse and does not explicitly prescribe rajm in its present text, I understand the Qur’anic punishment to be lashes, not stoning. I do not consider the hadith reports sufficient to establish an additional capital punishment contrary to what I understand the Qur’anic command to prescribe.”

That accurately expresses the Qur’an-centred argument. The traditional Sunni position differs because it treats the Sunnah as an authoritative source for specifying the application of the Qur’anic law. The disagreement is ultimately about the relationship between the Qur’an, hadith, and the authority of the doctrine of abrogation.

Qur’an 24:2 prescribes lashes for unmarried offenders. this is not correct, here included all offender not only unmarried

Your objection is valid regarding the explicit wording of Qur’an 24:2. The verse does not expressly restrict the punishment of 100 lashes to unmarried offenders.

The verse states:

ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِي فَٱجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ

“ The woman who commits zina and the man who commits zina—lash each one of them with one hundred lashes.” (Qur’an 24:2)

1. What does the Arabic say?

• ٱلزَّانِيَةُ — the woman who commits zina.

• وَٱلزَّانِي — and the man who commits zina.

• فَٱجْلِدُوا — then lash.

• كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا — each one of the two.

• مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ — one hundred lashes.

The verse does not say unmarried, nor does it explicitly exclude married offenders. The expression كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا means “each one of the two,” without an expressed marital-status qualification.

2. Why do traditional Sunni scholars distinguish married and unmarried offenders?

Traditional Sunni jurisprudence interprets Qur’an 24:2 alongside hadith reports prescribing rajm for qualifying married offenders. On that interpretation, the verse’s lashes apply to unmarried offenders, while rajm applies to qualifying married offenders.

However, the restriction to unmarried offenders is not stated explicitly in the wording of 24:2. It arises from the traditional interpretation that combines the verse with hadith.

3. Conclusion

Your reading follows the verse’s unqualified wording:

Qur’an 24:2 explicitly prescribes one hundred lashes for the woman and the man who commit zina, without expressly limiting this command to unmarried offenders.

Whether hadith establishes a separate punishment of rajm for married offenders is a further question concerning the authority and interpretation of hadith—not a qualification explicitly stated in the Arabic of 24:2.

So Rajam is haram in Islam as per Quran.

From a Qur’an-only perspective, your conclusion has a clear textual basis, but we should distinguish what the Qur’an explicitly prescribes from whether it explicitly declares rajm forbidden.

1. What does the Qur’an prescribe?

Qur’an 24:2 states:

ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِي فَٱجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ

“The woman who commits zina and the man who commits zina—lash each one of them with one hundred lashes.”

The verse:

• Refers generally to the woman and man who commit zina.

• Prescribes 100 lashes for each.

• Does not expressly restrict the punishment to unmarried offenders.

• Does not mention rajm (stoning to death).

2. Does the Qur’an explicitly declare rajm haram?

The Qur’an does not contain an explicit statement saying, “Rajm is haram.” Rather, the argument against prescribing rajm as an Islamic punishment is that the Qur’an specifies lashes without stating a marital-status exception or prescribing stoning as an additional punishment.

Qur’an 17:33 also prohibits taking a life unjustly, which is relevant to the discussion of capital punishment.

3. What is the traditional Sunni position?

Mainstream Sunni jurisprudence accepts rajm for qualifying married offenders based on hadith, interpreting Qur’an 24:2 as applying to unmarried offenders. That restriction is not explicitly stated in verse 24:2 itself.

Conclusion

If your question is whether rajm is prescribed as a punishment by the Qur’an itself, the answer is no: the present Qur’anic text does not explicitly prescribe rajm.

If you conclude that rajm therefore cannot be imposed as an Islamic punishment because Qur’an 24:2 prescribes lashes generally, that is a Qur’an-centred interpretation. However, calling rajm categorically haram in Islam is a broader theological and legal conclusion, because mainstream Sunni jurisprudence reaches a different conclusion through hadith.

In Quran يَسْمَعَ is used as accept, obey or comply, give example

In the Qur’an, يَسْمَعَ (yasmaʿa) is the imperfect verb “he hears” or “he listens.” Depending on context, hearing or listening can carry the broader sense of heeding or paying attention to what is heard. However, we should distinguish that contextual implication from the verb’s basic lexical meaning, “hear.”

For your question about Qur’an 9:6, the important issue is whether the Qur’an uses the same verb in contexts where hearing involves accepting or obeying.

Qur’anic examples

1. Al-Baqarah 2:93 — listening as accepting and obeying

وَاسْمَعُوا قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا

“Listen!” They said, “We hear and disobey.”

The command وَاسْمَعُوا (wa-ismaʿū) is understood in context as more than merely hearing sounds: it calls upon the people to listen, accept the instruction, and act accordingly. Al-Ṭabarī explains it as accepting what they heard and acting upon it.

الآية 93

+1

This is a strong example of samiʿa carrying the contextual sense of accepting or heeding an instruction.

2. Al-Baqarah 2:285 — hearing alongside obedience

سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا

“We hear and obey.”

Here, “hear” and “obey” are expressed as two coordinated verbs. Therefore, سَمِعْنَا by itself is not necessarily identical to أَطَعْنَا (we obey), even though hearing in this expression is associated with a willingness to obey.

Quran Dictionary

3. An-Nur 24:51 — hearing and obeying a judgment

قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا

“They say, ‘We hear and obey.’”

The context is a call to Allah and His Messenger for judgment. The believers’ response demonstrates both listening and compliance. Again, the wording distinguishes the two concepts while connecting them closely.

Quran.com

4. Al-Fatir 35:14 — hearing as responding

وَلَوْ سَمِعُوا مَا اسْتَجَابُوا لَكُمْ

“And if they heard, they would not respond to you.”

In this context, hearing is connected to responding. Some Qur’anic explanations gloss the relevant sense of hearing as responding or answering, rather than mere auditory perception.

تفسير كلمات القرآن الكريم

Application to At-Tawbah 9:6

حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ

“Until he hears the words of Allah.”

The Qur’an does support a broader contextual sense of hearing that can involve accepting, heeding, or responding. However, 9:6 does not by its wording alone establish that يَسْمَعَ means “obey” or “accept Islam.” That interpretation would need support from the surrounding context or additional evidence.

The most precise conclusion is that يَسْمَعَ literally means “he hears/listens,” while the context can extend the sense to heeding or responding. Whether it means acceptance or compliance specifically in 9:6 remains an interpretive question.

Do you not research about Quran related verse in Quranic

You are right to expect a Qur’an-with-Qur’an analysis. I should have examined the parallel Qur’anic passages more systematically before concluding. I searched the Qur’anic Arabic Corpus for occurrences of the root س م ع (hearing/listening).

Quran Search

+1

The most relevant examples are:

Verse	Arabic expression	Contextual meaning
2:93	وَاسْمَعُوا	“Listen!” — in the context of receiving Allah’s commands
2:285	سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا	“We hear and obey”
4:46	سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا	“We hear and obey”
6:36	إِنَّمَا يَسْتَجِيبُ الَّذِينَ يَسْمَعُونَ	“Only those who listen respond”
39:18	يَسْتَمِعُونَ الْقَوْلَ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ أَحْسَنَهُ	“They listen to the statement, then follow the best of it”
64:16	وَاسْمَعُوا وَأَطِيعُوا	“Listen and obey”

Sources:

Quran Search

+2

What does this establish for Qur’an 9:6?

حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ

“Until he hears the words of Allah.”

The strongest parallel is 6:36:

إِنَّمَا يَسْتَجِيبُ الَّذِينَ يَسْمَعُونَ

“Only those who listen respond.”

This connects hearing with responding. Likewise, 39:18 connects listening with following what is best. These passages establish that Qur’anic hearing can have a meaningful, responsive dimension—not merely the physical reception of sound.

However, the Qur’an also distinguishes hearing from obeying explicitly in 2:285 and 64:16. Therefore, the root س م ع does not invariably mean “obey.”

My conclusion: In 9:6, “until he hears Allah’s words” is the direct translation. “Until he listens to or heeds Allah’s message” is a possible contextual rendering. But translating it as “until he accepts Islam” or “until he obeys” requires a further interpretive argument; the parallel verses alone do not prove that specific mean