In his book, الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, page 38, Dr. Husayn Nassaar mentions Az-Zurqaani's criticism of Al-Asfahaani in four points, one of which is:
What the word الباطل means is the opposite of the truth. Thus, the Quran contains "logical, wise, factual and fixed" words. Az-Zurqaani then proceeded to conclude that this leads to abrogation! Because, he said, abrogation is a wise, Divine decision called for by what is best for people.
I'd like to ask Az-Zurqaani how does that apply to, say, the case of 58:13/58:12? A case approved abrogated by the majority of the pro-abrogation scholars, including Az-Zurqaani.
What exactly has changed during the one month (in one narration), or the
one hour (in another narration) that prompted God to annul the charity requirement and replace it with keeping up the prayers and alms and obeying God and His Messenger, three things Muslims are required to keep regardless?
Did God not know that only Ali would comply?
Was God not able to rephrase 58:12 to ensure that His order in it is not meant to be permanent or general, but temporary or specific to those who can afford it?
Nay! God phrased 58:12 perfectly, but man didn't get it. God makes it clear that what He is ordering is "
better and more purifying" for Muslims, a clear construct of recommendation, not mandate. He also clearly says that those who cannot afford it are forgiven if they do not do it.
So, what was annulled by 58:13?
I'd answer that by saying that if 58:13 annulled anything, it annulled the guilt feeling that Muslims had, who did not give charity before meeting the Prophet (PBUH) privately for consultation. Those Muslims should not have had that guilt feeling, because 58:12 has already stated that they were forgiven. But they did. That's why 58:13 was revealed to
confirm, rather than abrogate, 58:12.