was subsequently abrogated, whereas the ruling remained effective. We mentioned earlier that maintaining that a recitation is abrogated is actually the same as main‌ taining the opinion about alteration. In addition, we explained that the documenta‌ tion for this part has been derived from traditions with single narrations and, as such, cannot be admitted in obtaining an authoritative ruling.
Muslim scholars are in agreement that abrogation cannot be established through the documentation provided by a single narration, just as a Quranic text cannot be proven on that basis. The reason for this, besides the consensus of Muslim scholars, is that important matters that customarily become well known among people, and the spread of information about them (assuming they actually occurred), cannot be proven through a single narration. Indeed, its being reported by exclusively the one source, and not the others, is in itself the proof of falsehood or error on the part of the narrator.. Accordingly, how can it be proven, on the basis of a single narration, that the stoning verse was part of the Quran and that its recitation was abrogated while its ruling remained effective? It was mentioned previously that Umar brought forth the verse and claimed that it was part of the Quran. But the Muslims did not accept his word because he was the only one to transmit this verse. Therefore, they did not include it in the codices. Thus, subsequent scholars were compelled to accept the idea that the recitation of this verse was abrogated while the ruling remained in force.

Abrogation of Both the Recitation and the Ruling

[Second], those who maintain the view that there are verses whose recitation and ruling were abrogated cite the tradition narrated on the authority of Aisha (tradition ١٠), as discussed in [chapter ٧].. The same points raised in that discussion apply here.

Abrogation of the Ruling without the Recitation

This [third] mode of abrogation is the one generally accepted by jurists and exegetes. Some scholars have written monographs on this topic, and have mentioned in them the abrogating verses and the abrogated ones. Among them are the famous scholar Abu Jafar al-Nal:ll).as and the traditionist al-Mu affar
have opposed their views, and have rejected the existence of abrogated verses in the
Quran. However, all are in agreement that abrogation is possible, and that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate the rulings that were well established in the previ‌ ous sacred laws, and the ordinances that were introduced in the early days of Islam.
To clarify what is authentic in this category of abrogation, we must point out that the abrogation of a fixed ruling in the Quran could be of three kinds:
١. A ruling established by the Quran may be abrogated by a successively and uninter‌ ruptedly transmitted tradition, or by a definitive consensus that demonstrates that the abrogation was based on the opinion that came from the infallible Prophet or the Imam. Rationally and textually, there is no problem with this kind of abroga‌ tion, and, if it is proven for a given situation, then it should be followed; otherwise, one is not bound by the abrogation. Unquestionably, it is well established that the abrogation cannot be proven by means of a single narration.
٢. A ruling established by the Quran may be abrogated by another verse that deals with the abrogated ruling and provides the basis for its termination. This type of