The meaning of abrogation according to the early and later scholars, and a discussion on specification.

The Shaykh : This is abrogation in the terminology of the later scholars; that is because the later scholars restrict abrogation to the meaning of canceling a ruling from its root by a text that comes after the previous text. As for abrogation according to the early scholars and those other than the Companions and the Tabi'un, it includes even the specified text; it is abrogated by the specifying text, so it is an abrogating text. My purpose in this is to draw your attention to the fact that the topic of abrogation is a terminological issue, and matters that have been agreed upon by convention should not lead a Muslim to reject what may be established from a text or evidence on the grounds that this necessitates abrogation. Abrogation is not permissible by a solitary hadith, because this is a terminological issue. This is the purpose of this introduction.

The questioner : All right, before the purpose, the paragraph you presented... meaning... because abrogation according to the early scholars includes the text... meaning, more clarification.

The Shaykh : If you would be patient—my brother—it is possible that the matter will become clear with the completion of the speech.

The questioner : If Allah wills.

The Shaykh : So the specifying text and the specified text, in reality, something of abrogation takes place in them. The specified text is the one that contains many particulars, then another text comes that excludes a specific part from these particulars, taking it out of the text, abrogating it and lifting it from it; therefore, specification is partial abrogation. This is a matter agreed upon by the scholars, despite their disagreement with the Hanafis. The majority of scholars say: It is permissible to specify a mass-transmitted general text with a solitary non-mass-transmitted text. The Hanafis say: No, specification is not permissible except with mass-transmitted evidence as well.

Eid Abbasi : It is mentioned in Ibn Kathir.

The Shaykh: Yes.

Eid Abbasi : I remember it in Ibn Kathir as well...

The Shaykh : This is one of their opinions, as for solitary reports, specification is not permissible by them.

Eid Abbasi : It has become not...

The Shaykh: Of course.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: What is it?

The questioner : ... a section of the sections of the...

The Shaykh : All right, but I am specific, my brother.

The questioner : Yes, I am specific, yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the specific one.
The point is: If it is permissible to abrogate part of a general text with a text that has not reached the level of mass transmission, but is rather solitary, and let us say, even if the view shifts to the widespread hadith, let us say with a solitary rare text, if the majority permit specifying a mass-transmitted general text with a solitary rare text, as long as it is authentic; at that time, what is the difference between specifying a general text and canceling part of it with a solitary rare hadith, and canceling a mass-transmitted text that contained only one part with another solitary rare text? There is absolutely no difference between the two matters; therefore, the objection of many scholars to the statement of the permissibility of abrogating the Qur'an by the Sunnah is a surprise or objection that has no justification after they have permitted specifying the mass-transmitted general text with the solitary rare hadith.