On page 60 of his book
, Al-Zalmi uses an argument that was also mentioned in other books, which isIf it was needed to update the religion in the short 23 years of revelation, then it must be far more needed to update the religion in the 14 centuries since.
This argument is either posed as evidence against abrogation, or as a consequence of abrogation, or as inappropriate attack by enemies. I just want to point out that I fundamentally disagree with the argument itself. There are two characteristics of the '23 years' that are unique to them which makes change credible during that period but not after. The static/dynamic
aspect is the obvious characteristic (the religion was changing, abrogation or not, because it was being revealed incrementally). The other is that this was a period of changing an existing religion (or lack thereof) and that calls for certain measures that are not applicable in a steady state, e.g., changing rules for visiting the graves.
I don't see the argument as valid for any of the purposes it is used for, whether pro- or anti- abrogation, and whether pro- or anti- religion.