The Qur’anic Root N S KH
Nasakha: removing and effacing, or taking up and recording content
The root ن س خ occurs in the Qur’an in just four forms: نَنسَخْ in Al-Baqarah 2:106, نُسْخَتِهَا in Al-Aʿrāf 7:154, فَيَنسَخُ in Al-Ḥajj 22:52, and نَسْتَنسِخُ in Al-Jāthiyah 45:29.
These four occurrences already show that naskh cannot mean only “invalidating a ruling” or only “making a copy.”
Arabic records two clear branches of this word family.
In one branch, something is removed from its previous position or condition, and that condition no longer remains. Expressions describing sunlight displacing shade, old age overtaking youth, and successive generations and heirs belong to this field.
In the other branch, content is taken from a source and recorded elsewhere, as when a written text is copied. In this case, the original is not necessarily destroyed.
Earlier investigations of Arabic recognized the difference between these branches. One view treated “removing something and having something else take its place” as fundamental; another gave priority to “transferring something into something else.”
Related Semitic languages add an important dimension. In ancient Hebrew, a cognate is used for tearing away and removing from a place. Akkadian also has a related form meaning pulling out, removing, and uprooting. Aramaic and Syriac have forms associated with texts and copies.
This evidence supports the antiquity of the “removing and uprooting” branch. “Taking from a position or source” can be proposed as a way to explain the relationship between the two branches. This is an analytical synthesis, however, rather than an original meaning whose historical development has been demonstrated. With that qualification, two paths can be compared:
In one, something is removed from its place and the previous condition ends;
in the textual branch, content is taken from a source and recorded in another text, without necessarily destroying the original.
This possible relationship does not establish that the Arabic textual branch was necessarily borrowed from another language, or that every use developed along precisely the same historical path.
Without a securely dated and attributed witness from pre-Qur’anic Arabic, the priority of either branch cannot be established. A categorical claim about the “first Arabic meaning” is therefore best avoided.
A proposed definition connecting the two branches is:
N S KH: a family with two clear branches—removing and effacing, and taking up and recording content. “Taking from a position or source” can help explain their relationship, without being treated as a proven historical origin. In the first branch, replacement is possible but is not always required by the meaning; in the textual branch, the original need not disappear.
Forms and designations examined
Four Qur’anic occurrences: two clear directions
The four Qur’anic occurrences can be examined against these two branches.
“Wa-fī nuskhati-hā hudan wa-raḥmah”
Al-Aʿrāf states:
وَلَمَّا سَكَتَ عَنْ مُوسَى الْغَضَبُ أَخَذَ الْأَلْوَاحَ وَفِي نُسْخَتِهَا هُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِينَ هُمْ لِرَبِّهِمْ يَرْهَبُونَ
Wa-lammā sakata ʿan Mūsā l-ghaḍabu akhadha l-alwāḥa wa-fī nuskhati-hā hudan wa-raḥmatun li-lladhīna hum li-rabbi-him yarhabūn.
“When Moses’ anger subsided, he took up the tablets. In their inscription were guidance and mercy for those who fear their Lord.”
Al-Aʿrāf 7:154
نُسْخَة (nuskhah) appears in an explicitly textual setting:
الألواح
Al-alwāḥ.
and:
في نسختها
Fī nuskhati-hā.
In Arabic, nuskhah can refer to a written text or its recorded form. The verse itself does not require these tablets to have been a “second copy” of some other tablets.
“In their inscription” or “in what was written on them” is therefore more cautious than a translation that extracts a story about an original and a second copy from the word alone.
This occurrence also shows that the N S KH family is not exclusively about destroying or invalidating: the branch of text and recording is present in the Qur’an itself.
“Innā kunnā nastansikhu mā kuntum taʿmalūn”
Al-Jāthiyah states:
هَٰذَا كِتَابُنَا يَنْطِقُ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْحَقِّ ۚ إِنَّا كُنَّا نَسْتَنسِخُ مَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
Hādhā kitābu-nā yanṭiqu ʿalaykum bi-l-ḥaqqi; innā kunnā nastansikhu mā kuntum taʿmalūn.
“This is Our book, speaking truthfully concerning you. We were making a record of what you used to do.”
Al-Jāthiyah 45:29
Here too, the phrase:
هَٰذَا كِتَابُنَا
Hādhā kitābu-nā.
places the sentence in the setting of a book and a record.
نستنسخ (nastansikhu) is form X of this root. Istinsākh can denote copying and also requesting or ordering something to be recorded or copied. “Ordering deeds to be recorded” is also an attested explanation of this verse. The verb should therefore not be restricted to the speaker’s personally copying something. Under either analysis, what people have done is recorded in the book.
Istinsākh does not require the conclusion that human deeds have been copied verbatim from an initial material book into another book. The verse itself does not explain the mechanism of recording.
What is clear for the study of the root is that here:
Naskh concerns transmission and recording, rather than erasing what has been done.
This direction also distinguishes istinsākh from writing in general, kitābah. K T B can denote writing and recording of any kind; the textual branch of N S KH involves content taken from a source or event and recorded elsewhere.
“Fa-yansakhu llāhu mā yulqī sh-shayṭān”
Al-Ḥajj states:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَسُولٍ وَلَا نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا إِذَا تَمَنَّىٰ أَلْقَى الشَّيْطَانُ فِي أُمْنِيَّتِهِ فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ
Wa-mā arsalnā min qabli-ka min rasūlin wa-lā nabiyyin illā idhā tamannā alqā sh-shayṭānu fī umniyyati-hi fa-yansakhu llāhu mā yulqī sh-shayṭānu thumma yuḥkimu llāhu āyāti-hi; wa-llāhu ʿalīmun ḥakīm.
“We sent no Messenger or Prophet before you but that, when he engaged in tamannī, Satan cast something into his umniyyah. Then The God removes what Satan casts, and then The God makes His signs firm. And The God is Knowing, Wise.”
Al-Ḥajj 22:52
The object of ينسخ (yansakhu) in this verse is explicit:
مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ
Mā yulqī sh-shayṭān.
what Satan casts.
Something has been introduced, and The God then removes it.
The branch of removal and clearing away is therefore securely attested in the Qur’an itself.
A further important point is what follows:
ثُمَّ يُحْكِمُ اللَّهُ آيَاتِهِ
Thumma yuḥkimu llāhu āyāti-hi.
“Then The God makes His signs firm.”
Naskh and iḥkām are two separate actions. The meaning “making firm” should not be absorbed into yansakhu itself.
Moreover, what is removed here is not a previously valid command; it is what Satan casts. The full lexical range of naskh therefore cannot be restricted to “lifting an earlier religious ruling through a subsequent religious address.” That is a particular technical use. The distinction between the two ranges does not, by itself, establish whether that technical interpretation is correct or incorrect in another verse.
The precise meaning of تَمَنَّىٰ / أُمْنِيَّتِهِ (tamannā / umniyyati-hi) requires a separate discussion. Establishing the range of N S KH does not require choosing between their interpretations here. Under either reading, the explicit object of naskh remains ما يلقي الشيطان—what Satan casts.
“Mā nansakh min āyah”
Al-Baqarah states:
مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا ۗ أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
Mā nansakh min āyatin aw nunsi-hā naʾti bi-khayrin min-hā aw mithli-hā; a-lam taʿlam anna llāha ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr.
“Whatever sign We subject to naskh or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that The God has power over all things?” Here, “cause to be forgotten” denotes bringing about its being forgotten, not the speaker’s forgetting it Himself.
Al-Baqarah 2:106
Under the usual conditional analysis of the sentence, ما (mā) is a conditional expression and the preceding object of ننسخ (nansakh). من آية (min āyah) specifies its kind and scope: any instance among the signs.
This construction does not yield “part of a single verse.” Min āyah specifies an instance belonging to the category of signs.
Three actions should also be kept distinct:
نَنسَخْ
Nansakh.
نُنسِهَا
Nunsi-hā.
and:
نَأْتِ
Naʾti.
Naskh is one action; the second possibility is expressed by another verb; and bringing something better or similar is independently expressed by نأت (naʾti).
This distinction matters for the root’s meaning. “Bringing a replacement” is what the verse states after naskh or the second possibility. The entire expression نأت بخير منها أو مثلها need not be incorporated into the lexical definition of naskh.
Nor is آية (āyah) used in the Qur’an only as the name of a numbered unit of the written text. Identifying its referent here belongs to the contextual analysis of Al-Baqarah 2:106, rather than to the root N S KH alone.
Readings of Al-Baqarah 2:106: naskh, forgetting, and postponement
This verse has significant reading variants that should not be overlooked when identifying roots and forms.
In the widely used reading transmitted by Ḥafṣ:
أَوْ نُنسِهَا
Aw nunsi-hā.
belongs to ن س ي and is form IV of أَنْسَى (ansā): causing something to be forgotten or to pass out of memory. It should not be confused with the speaker’s own forgetting. An interpretation in terms of leaving aside is also recorded, but this is an interpretive analysis and should not replace the verb’s causative sense without explanation.
In the canonical readings of Ibn Kathīr and Abū ʿAmr, however, the wording is:
أَوْ نَنسَأْهَا
Aw nansaʾ-hā.
from ن س أ, meaning to postpone.
Thus, the second part of the verse is read from two different roots in these readings.
This difference does not change the root of nansakh, but it affects how its relationship with the next verb is understood. In the reading transmitted by Ḥafṣ, the second verb belongs to the family of forgetting and has a causative form; in the other reading, it belongs to the family of postponement. Each reading must be examined according to its own structure.
Ibn ʿĀmir also reads ننسخ as:
نُنسِخْ
Nunsikh.
This form is analyzed as form IV, ansakha. Different explanations of its precise force have been offered. Since both readings remain within the N S KH family, the morphological difference alone does not determine the exact kind of naskh involved.
For a root study, the essential conclusion is:
The reading, morphological form, lexical meaning, and contextual interpretation must be distinguished. The existence of several readings does not necessarily make each reading ambiguous; nor does it, by itself, establish or refute the technical doctrine of naskh.
Technical naskh and the scope of a root study
Within the traditions of Qur’anic interpretation and legal theory, naskh acquired a specialized use: lifting an earlier religious ruling through a later religious address. The boundaries and applications of this definition have themselves been debated.
This is a real historical use, but it should not displace the root’s lexical field.
The Qur’an itself contains the forms:
نُسْخَتِهَا
Nuskhati-hā.
نَسْتَنسِخُ
Nastansikh.
and:
فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ
Fa-yansakhu llāhu mā yulqī sh-shayṭān.
which are not explained by the later technical definition “lifting an earlier religious ruling through a later religious ruling.”
Conversely, the copying branch does not establish that every instance of naskh in the Qur’an means making a copy.
The technical forms nāsikh and mansūkh, as names for two classes of verses, do not occur as such in the Qur’an itself.
Determining what kind of sign, change, and scope of guidance Al-Baqarah 2:106 concerns requires contextual analysis. A root study should clarify the linguistic range and prevent a later technical definition from taking the word’s place at the outset.
Translation proposals for Forqan
In Al-Aʿrāf 7:154:
وَفِي نُسْخَتِهَا هُدًى وَرَحْمَةٌ
Wa-fī nuskhati-hā hudan wa-raḥmah.
the translation:
“And in their inscription were guidance and mercy.”
is natural. “In their copy” can suggest a second copy, whereas the verse does not require that detail.
In Al-Jāthiyah 45:29:
إِنَّا كُنَّا نَسْتَنسِخُ مَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ
Innā kunnā nastansikhu mā kuntum taʿmalūn.
“We were recording what you used to do”
is suitable as a fluent translation. An explanation can discuss recording deeds or ordering them to be recorded. “We were copying” makes the copying branch more explicit, but can suggest that the initial source was itself a written text. That detail cannot be established from the verb alone.
In Al-Ḥajj 22:52:
فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ
Fa-yansakhu llāhu mā yulqī sh-shayṭān.
“Then The God removes what Satan casts”
or:
“Then The God clears away what Satan casts”
both fit the branch of removal.
“Uproots” is close to one of the ancient senses attested in the Semitic family, but sounds markedly physical in this verse. It is better used to explain the historical comparison than as the principal translation here.
In Al-Baqarah 2:106, retaining the word itself is appropriate in an analytical translation:
“Whatever sign We subject to naskh…”
Immediately choosing “invalidate,” “delete,” “replace,” or “copy,” before examining the context, commits the verse to one of the root’s branches.
Summary
Arabic clearly attests two branches: “removing and effacing” and “copying and recording content.” Semitic cognates support the antiquity of removing and uprooting, but do not establish a single historical origin meaning “taking from a position or source.” That expression can help explain the relationship between the branches, provided it remains an analytical proposal. In the removal branch, replacement is not always necessary; in the textual branch, the original does not necessarily disappear.
Qur’anic usage preserves both directions. نُسْخَتِهَا and نَسْتَنسِخُ belong to writing and recording; فَيَنسَخُ اللَّهُ مَا يُلْقِي الشَّيْطَانُ belongs to removal and clearing away. Al-Baqarah 2:106 places nansakh in a construction followed by The God bringing something better or similar. Naʾti itself must remain distinct from nansakh.
The readings نُنسِهَا / نَنسَأْهَا have different roots and structures and must be analyzed separately. The causative force of nunsi-hā must also be recognized. The specialized use of nāsikh and mansūkh in Qur’anic interpretation and legal theory does not define every Qur’anic use of this family. Judging each verse requires examining its context.
A concise definition of the root can therefore be:
N S KH: a family with two clear branches—removing and effacing, and taking up and recording content. In the first branch, replacement is possible but not always necessary; in the textual branch, content is recorded or recorded again, without requiring the destruction of the original. “Taking from a position or source” is a proposed synthesis connecting the branches, rather than a demonstrated historical etymology. The object, sentence structure, and context clarify the contribution of each meaning.
Naskh in the Qur’an: Challenging the Claim That Its Verses Can Be Set Aside