The 21 traditional case studies yield a disciplined five-part test.
First identify whether “naskh” is being used broadly or technically. Next ask whether both passages truly govern the same duty and situation. Explore specification, qualification, exceptions, duration, and contextual reconciliation. Investigate chronological sequence using appropriate evidence. Finally determine whether the legal requirement was abolished, eased, or merely clarified.
The result is neither unrestricted abrogation nor an unexamined refusal to recognize legal change. Sound interpretation preserves both texts wherever reasonable and recognizes a genuine later alteration only on evidence.