TheMostReadBook.org

This case was reported by Ibn Al-Jawzi. The claim some made was that

was abrogated by


This is what Ibn Al-Jawzi writes about it,


Ibn Al-Jawzi rejects the abrogation claim and affirms a point I've always affirmed: if a ruling is abrogated, it means it's no longer valid, and that means that if 4:29 was abrogated then "eating money in falsehood" is now permitted! It is too ridiculous a case to discuss, but since it was mentioned in the literature, we have to address it.

BTW, the exception in 4:29 that says, "except if it is a present trade" is a literary, not literal exception. That is, it does not mean that one may "eat money in falsehood" if the situation is a present trade! It means that a trade is a legitimate means of taking money from people. This literary style is used quite a bit in the Quran.

For:
Ibn Abbaas (weak narration),
Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam,
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama,
Abdullah ibn Al-Husayn.

Against:
Masrooq,
Al-Hasan,
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Makki,
Al-Khazraji,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.

In his book لانسخ في القرآن, pages 122-124, Dr. As-Saqqa quotes Al-Qurtubi from his exegesis saying that the only report that 4:29 was abrogated is attributed to Ibn Abbaas by Ali ibn Abi-Talha, but that the man never met Ibn Abbaas, therefore the report is not authentic.

Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, page 90 (item 815) says that some have claimed that 4:29 abrogated itself with the exception "except if it is a trade of mutual consent". He doesn't say who made the claim but he rejects it and all claims that are based solely on exception.