implies discarding a ruling for another. As long as both rulings can be applied, naskh is not resorted to. The more important conditions are as follows: 1) The most important condition for naskh to have occurred is that the two rulings in question must directly contradict each other, such that both rulings cannot be applied at the same time, and there exists no way to reconcile them . This is because, as just mentioned, naskh is only called a s a last-resort, when there exists no other way to explain the two rulings . Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh . (Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan , Chapter 13. Abrogation in the Qur'aan: An-Naskh Wa Al-Mansookh, III. The Conditions for Naskh, pp. 236-237; bold and underline emphasis ours) For more on abrogation we recommend perusing the articles found in this link . Eight and finally, according to the Shia apologists at the Answering Ansar website there is a hadith where Umar bin al-Khattab used the same Arabic word that Ibn Umar did in a similar context concerning the loss of the Quran: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting