Metodologi Penetapan Nasikh Mansukh dalam Studi Al-Qur’an: Kajian Analitis terhadap Perbedaan Pendekatan Ulama

Abstract

The concept of nasikh mansukh is one of the fundamental themes in Qur’anic studies that continues to generate debate among Muslim scholars. These differences are not merely related to the number of verses considered abrogated, but are deeply rooted in methodological variations in determining the existence of abrogation. This article aims to analyze the methodologies used in establishing nasikh mansukh and to examine the differences between classical and contemporary scholars’ approaches to the concept. This study employs library research using tafsir and usul al-fiqh approaches, along with a comparative analysis of scholarly perspectives. Data are derived from classical and contemporary Qur’anic commentaries as well as relevant usul al-fiqh literature. The findings indicate that classical scholars tend to emphasize the chronology of revelation and a textual approach in determining abrogation, whereas contemporary scholars adopt a more cautious stance by prioritizing contextual and historical approaches and limiting the application of abrogation. These methodological differences have significant implications for the interpretation of legal verses in the Qur’an. This article argues that nasikh mansukh should be understood proportionally as an interpretative method to preserve the coherence and relevance of the Qur’anic message.