Is it true that islamic sources claim that verse 2:256 is abrogated?
Executive summary
The idea of naskh (abrogation) is a long‑standing, contested doctrine in Islamic scholarship: many classical jurists accepted that some Quranic rulings were superseded by later texts, while modern and minority voices reject broad notions of abrogation [1] [2] [3]. Regarding Qur’an 2:256 specifically, the provided reporting does not show a clear consensus among mainstream sources that 2:256 is universally acknowledged as abrogated; the claim appears in online discussion and is disputed [4].
1. What "abrogation" means and why scholars developed the doctrine
Abrogation (naskh or al‑nāsikh wal‑mansūkh) is the technical term used by many classical Sunni jurists to resolve apparent contradictions by holding that a later revelation may replace an earlier ruling; the concept was institutionalized in classical usul al‑fiqh and invoked to explain tensions between peaceful and martial passages [1] [2].
2. Classical acceptance and limits — many but not unanimous
A broad reading of the scholarship shows the doctrine was widely used by Sunni schools — Shāfiʿī, Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī — but with important limits and disagreements over what counts as genuine cases of naskh and which verses are affected [1] [5]. Some classical lists identify only a few dozen accepted instances and scholars differ sharply on numbers and examples [5] [6].
3. Modern and sectarian pushback against abrogation
From the 19th century onward, modernist and some reformist thinkers challenged the breadth of naskh, arguing for reinterpretation rather than cancellation; Shia and Ahmadiyya critiques similarly contest classical claims and stress there is no abrogation of Quranic text in the sense of God changing His word [1] [3] [7].
4. The specific case of Qur’an 2:256 in the available reporting
The only item in the provided set that directly raises the question of 2:256 is an Islam.StackExchange thread noting claims that certain commentators (an attribution sometimes given to Ibn Kathir) treat aspects of tolerance‑phrases as limited or abrogated, while noting difficulty locating the passage in Ibn Kathir’s standard printed tafsir and pointing out disagreement among scholars [4]. The reporting supplied does not include a primary classical tafsir citation conclusively showing mainstream acceptance that 2:256 is mansūkh (abrogated).
5. How to read the disagreement: competing methods and motives
Disagreement over whether a verse is abrogated often reflects methodological choices — whether one privileges chronological asbāb al‑nuzūl sequencing, accepts abrogation by later Quranic verses or Sunnah, or instead opts for harmonizing reinterpretation — and can be shaped by theological or legal agendas (those wanting a more universal, timeless Qur’an oppose naskh; those resolving legal tensions favor it) [2] [8] [6].
6. Bottom line from the sources provided
It is accurate to say that Islamic sources include both claims of abrogation and vigorous rebuttals, and that abrogation as a doctrine exists in the tradition [1] [2]. However, based on the material supplied here there is no authoritative, uncontested record in the major cited works proving that 2:256 is broadly accepted as abrogated; the claim appears in contested online commentary [4] and must be treated as disputed until primary classical tafsir evidence is produced [4] [5].