Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi wrote:
God willed that He forbid things for a while then allow them. There is no particular reason for that, just like there is no particular reason for sending Muhammad (PBUH) at the time He sent him and not before, or like there is no particular reason for the prayers to be five and not three or seven.
Again, doesn't address the abrogation doctrine, but rather God's free will. Rejecting the abrogation doctrine is not a rejection of God's power or free will; it's rejection of a concocted doctrine that cannot be proven.
Al-Jabri dedicates several pages early in his book
(pages 28-34) to the opinions of Ibn Hazm, singling him out for significant emphasis. When Al-Jabri discussed the above quote, he provided the context of what Ibn Hazm said before, leading to the quote. Here is my translation of part of what Ibn Hazm said according to Al-Jabri (page 31):
- If the wisdom is total lifting of the wording of some of the abrogated so that no people would be misguided by it, why did God leave the wording of some of the abrogated to misguide some?
- What makes what was lifted more fit to be lifted than what was left in wording among the abrogated, which confused groups of the religious people?
- What makes what was left in wording more fit to be left than what was lifted in wording among the abrogated?
These questions strike me as being at the heart of the abrogation doctrine since they very specifically contrast "lifting the verse" and "lifting the ruling but not the recitation." It seems that Ibn Hazm was conflicted about that. He followed by the quoted statement which Al-Jabri outright mocks as the easy way out, invoking that faith in abrogation is a form of worship and that God can do anything He wants to do. Al-Jabri counters by saying that God can also be unfair, but that doesn't mean that He is unfair.