5. The entire basis of the abrogation claim is a narration of A'isha, may God be pleased with her.
That is exactly why Dr. Mustafa Zayd was confident that this is a valid abrogation claim and he approved it in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 297-304 (items 1212-1225). He quotes the full text of the hadeeth, and it's a good thing he does, because it shows clearly that `Aa'isha, may God have been pleased with her, is the one who made the conclusion of abrogation; it was not the Prophet, peace be upon him. That is not proof of abrogation, per our validation rule #0
, which Dr. Zayd has advocated repeatedly in his thesis and used to refute claims with.
Dr. Zayd also takes from the hadeeth that the command in 73:1-4 was for all Muslims, not just the Prophet (PBUH). That is not what the verses say, nor is it what `Aa'isha said either! What she said was:
فإن الله عز وجل افترض قيام الليل في أول هذه السورة، فقام نبي الله وأصحابه حولا، وأمسك الله خاتمتها اثني عشر شهرا في السماء، حتى أنزل الله في آخر هذه السورة التخفيف، فصار قيام الليل تطوعا بعد فريضة
Translation: God, may He be esteemed and prominent, had mandated staying up at night (in prayer) in the beginning of this Chapter, so the Prophet of God and his fellows stayed up [at night praying] for a year. God withheld the ending for twelve months in heaven, until God sent down in the ending of this Chapter the easing; staying up became voluntary after being mandatory. Reported by Muslim.
So, she did not say whom the command was for, only that Sahaaba followed it.
6. This abrogation case is intermingled in the theological dispute about whether only the 5 prayers are required. The opinions about that are less unequivocal than what one would expect.
Dr. Zayd brings up that discussion, quoting Ash-Shaafi`i, who concluded like he does, that Tahajjud prayer was mandated on all but remained mandated on the Prophet only, peace be upon him. Other than `Aa'isha's interpretation, I don't see how the conclusion can be made that the mandate was on anybody but the Prophet (PBUH).
7. Some prominent scholars do not see this as an abrogation case, including Ka'b Al-Ahbar, Hasan Basri, and Al-Suddi.
Funny that Dr. Zayd quotes those three as backing up his conclusion! Even though what they said, and what he said, was that the phrase فاقرؤوا ماتيسر منه
(So, recite what you can from it) in 73:20 refers to actual recitation of the Quran, not prayer. Thus, what they said, and what he should've concluded from his own argument, was that the subject of 73:20 is recitation of the Quran, while the subject of 73:1-4 is prayer, and therefore, the verses do not abrogate each other.
What is also funny is that Dr. Zayd actually disagrees with Ash-Shaaf`i in much of his analysis of these verses, especially his conclusion that 73:20 was itself abrogated by
In fact, Dr. Zayd has disagreed and refuted the arguments of several Sahaaba and subsequent scholars who stated claims of abrogation and used that word in their narrations. So, why then does he set the rule that a narration that states an abrogation is proof of it, though the narration is not attributed to the Prophet (PBUH)?