عنوان مقاله [English]
The theory of “abrogation in Quranic verses” has been continually debated by scholars through the ages. Any abrogation has two elements: abrogating and abrogated. According to the common theory, legislation is just for God and abrogation of the Quranic verses belongs to the age of revelation, and abrogating is done only by the Quranic verses, not any other factor. In addition, there is a different theory named “abrogation continuity”; accordingly, the verses of legal commandments (āyāt al-aḥkām) were revealed in coherence with the rational practice, and reason can realize the corruptions and benefits of the time and hence abrogate the verses that lost their useful usage. The present paper, using the descriptive-analytical method, investigates and criticizes the theory. As a result, the theory has a lot of drawbacks including: there are many traditional reasons, specifying reason cannot understand the details of legal commandments; inaccurate definition of key concepts of abrogation; disagreements between the wise that caused them not to have a same rational practice; the conflict between sending prophets and legislation continuity of commandments based on the rational practice; the contradiction between the end of prophecy and abrogation of the verses by reason; ambiguity in definition of reason and its disability of abrogating according to different abilities of human reasons; emergence of the turmoil in the religion and then loss of the validity of the religious rules.