they otherwise would not have been able to pass. As mentioned above, one reason for the difference in tallies of abrogated verses comes from a confusion over the difference between "naskh" (abrogation) and "takhsees" (clarification). (An example being verse Q.8:1 which says the "spoils are for Allah and His Messenger", whereas Q.8:41 says "one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger". While many scholars declared that verse Q.8:41 cancels (naskh) Q.8:1, it might be more accurate to say, Q.8:41 explains (takhsees) how much of the spoils of Q.8:1 "are for Allah and His Messenger".) Yasir Qadhi declares that calling "takhsees" verses "naskh" inflated the number of naskh verses. Similarly, Ibn Al-Qayyim and Abu Amina Elias argue that what early Muslims called abrogating is now considered interpretation: The general meaning of the righteous predecessors when using the words 'abrogating' and 'abrogated' is sometimes the complete removal of the previous ruling – and this is the technical term of the latter generations – or sometimes the removal of the general, absolute, and outward meaning, whether by specification, restriction, interpreting an absolute as limited, or by explanation and clarification. Even they would refer to is as exceptional and conditional. Scholarly questions and alternatives Questions/criticism Muslim While belief in the theory of naskh of Islamic revelation is part of Sunni Muslim orthodoxy, there are more than a few scholars who do not accept it, including most twentieth century modernist reformist scholars. In addition some non-mainstream sects of Islam — such as the Mu'tazili, Zaidiyah, and Quranists, and more recently the Ahmadiyya — have rejected naskh on the rationalist grounds that the word of God can not contain contradictions. Other scholars did/do not dismiss the theory of naskh but consider it poor scholarship. One medieval scholar we know about — Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (d. 322/933) — "denied the theory of naskh entirely". More recently there have been Aslam Jairajpuri (d. 1955), and Modernist Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1439/1898), revivalist scholar Mohammed al-Ghazali, Khaleel Mohammed, and contemporary scholar Ahmad Hasan. According to David Powers, Islamic scholars have asked how an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God, would need to change His mind, i.e. His eternal divine will, and would reveal rulings wrong or imperfect in the first place. Islamic Modernist scholars, (according to scholar Karel Steenbrink), consider the theory of naskh "an insult to the integrity and value of the uncreated revelation of God." Hasan believes the theory of