Dr. Mustafa Zayd discusses this claim, which he rejects, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 252-257 (items 1124-1133). Kudos to Dr. Zayd, who finally reveals why some scholars have advocated what is so illogical, namely, that a preceding verse abrogated a following verse! It turns out that this may have been caused by the writing of Abdul-Qaahir Al-Baghdaadi, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ, page 43. Al-Baghdaadi lists this claim as one of those claims over which there was consensus. Dr. Zayd shows that was not the case.
What Al-Baghdaadi wrote is his opinion, I suppose, about the circumstances of revelation of these two verses. He says that God has given the Prophet (PBUH) a choice between the treasures of the earth, without reducing his reward with God in the Hereafter even a mosquito's wing worth, and between contentment with what he had. The Prophet (PBUH) chose what he had. Then God commanded him to give his wives a choice, as He stated in 33:28-29,
They all chose the Prophet (PBUH), except, Al-Baghdaadi writes, a woman named Umm Jameel, who chose to leave. The Prophet (PBUH) divorced her, and she was miserable ever since until she died poor. Those wives who chose to stay with the Prophet (PBUH), God rewarded them by forbidding the Prophet (PBUH) from marrying again.
Then, Al-Baghdaadi writes, when Islam spread wide and war booty became plenty, God allowed him what He previously forbade him, namely, to marry more women.
While that may explain the cause of this strange abrogation claim, it begs the question: How come nobody else, including the pro-abrogation folk, ever told this story to back up his claim? Did none of them know about it? Or did they know it wasn't true?
Doesn't that story necessarily imply that God withdrew His reward for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH)? God forbid!
And who is this Umm Jameel? I never heard of her before. If she was married to the Prophet (PBUH) and chose to leave him, wouldn't that have been the talk of the town? How is it that her story is left out of the many classic books I read?
Dr. Zayd refutes the claim on the basis of no contradiction. He first draws attention to the words
من بعد (from now on) in verse 33:52. It means forever, so how can it possibly get abrogated?
Dr. Zayd then ridicules Al-Baghdaadi's reasoning that the situation changed when booty became plenty. That means the reason the Prophet (PBUH) was limited to his current wives was because of his poverty! But the man said that the reason for revealing 33:52 was not poverty, but to reward the wives who stayed with the Prophet (PBUH).
Dr. Zayd then knocks down Al-Baghdaadi's claim that consensus was that 33:50 abrogated 33:52, since At-Tabari, in his exegesis, stated that both verses were not abrogated. His interpretation matches mine, namely, that 33:50 gave him a final choice and once the Prophet (PBUH) made the choice then, he could not marry again ever. At-Tabari
preceded Al-Baghdaadi. Dr. Zayd also showed proof that scholars who came
after Al-Baghdaadi, such as Ibn Al`Arabi, also rejected his consensus claim and narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Ibn Abbaas what clearly destroys Al-Baghdaadi's theory. Ibn Al`Arabi aslo stated, in his book أحكام القرآن, page 1559, that the hadeeth attributed to `Aa'isha, in which she says that the Prophet (PBUH) had full license to marry before he died, that that hadeeth was very weak.
Another scholar who came after Al-Baghdaadi and knocked down his claim of consensus about this case, was Ibn Al-Jawzi. He quoted narrations form Ibn Abbaas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn Seereen, Abu-Umaama, Ibn Sahl, Abu-Bakr Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Al-Haarith and As-Suddi.