The issue of abrogation (naskh) in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) is a key topic for understanding the Quran and the Sunnah. It has been debated since the early days of Islam, with various definitions provided for it. Some define it as the lifting of a Sharia ruling by a subsequent divine address, others as the specification of the termination period of the initial ruling by a subsequent address, while some define it as the qualification of an absolute ruling, the specification of a general ruling, or the clarification of an ambiguous ruling.

An examination of these definitions has shown that abrogation in the sense of the complete lifting of a ruling is only exemplified in the change of the qiblah (direction of prayer). In contrast, abrogation meaning the specification of a ruling's duration is seen in cases such as the alleviation in warfare (reducing the obligation for one Muslim to fight against ten disbelievers). Furthermore, many instances presented as abrogator (al-nasikh) and abrogated (al-mansukh) are, in reality, examples of qualifying an absolute ruling, specifying a general ruling, or clarifying an ambiguous ruling.

The research findings indicate that most scholars of Usul al-Fiqh have accepted the abrogation of the Quran by the Quran, the Quran by the Sunnah, the Sunnah by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah by the Quran. However, Imam Al-Shafi'i does not accept the abrogation of the Quran by the Sunnah. Important findings of this research include the limitation of the scope of abrogation to legislative rulings and its non-applicability to the divine attributes.

The research method employed in this study is analytical-descriptive, analyzing the definitions of abrogation and applying them to Quranic and narrative examples by examining the opinions of jurists and scholars of Usul al-Fiqh.