In refuting this claim, Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 101-107 (items 828-833) mentions that Huzhayfa ibn Al-Yamaan (RA) married a Jewish woman and Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (RA) got angry and wrote to him to "let her go"! Huzhayfa wrote back asking, "Are you saying she is not lawful for me, so I must let her go?" Umar replied, "I do not claim she is unlawful, but I fear that Muslims may start marrying their prostitutes." Dr. Zayd points out that what Umar was afraid of was that, because Huzhayfa was a role model, that ordinary Muslims may forsake Muslim women.
Dr. Zayd also brings to notice the fact that Ibn Abbaas and Ar-Rabee` used the word "exempted" when they narrated this claim. He also says that the Hanafis mean exemption when they talk about
partial abrogation.
And it is that, exemption, which is the basis for Dr. Zayd's rejection of this claim. He disagrees with At-Tabari's argument that it is a case of a generality specified, because, he says, there are no words that lead to that conclusion in 5:5. Rather, the words of 5:5 make it "almost clear" that a new ruling is made, but it
doesn't rise up to the level of abrogation.
That sounds like a contradiction, doesn't it? I think that he's referring o the words
اليوم أحل لكم (Today, it is made lawful for you). We already addressed this in an
earlier post. The fact that the first item declared allowed after that phrase is "
the good things", is proof that the phrase does
not mean this is a new ruling, since good things were never disallowed before this verse!
So, what is it, if it's not a new ruling? It's
a final articulation of the same ruling that has always been: None of what God has allowed before is disallowed and none of what God disallowed before is allowed.