TheMostReadBook.org

Ibn Al-Jawzi writes that some people claimed that

was abrogated by

And others said by the sword verse (9:5). Here is what he wrote,


Ibn Al-Jawzi reports four interpretations of whom is addressed in 9:2 and which four months are referred to in it. The strongest of these, said by Ibn As-Saa'ib, is that the verse gives a grace period to any polytheist who did not already have a treaty. This was confirmed by Ali, may God have been pleased with him, who said, "As for those who do have a treaty, their treaty remains valid." Frankly, I don't know how this interpretation can be made, since 9:1 clearly names the polytheists with whom Muslims have a treaty. The only interpretation that would make sense and reconcile it all is that 9:2 specifies a grace period for the polytheists whose treaty term has expired. That is, Muslims will not fight them, even though the treaty is over, for four months, unless of course the polytheists start the offensive.

Ibn Al-Jawzi seems to reject the abrogation claim on the basis that the alternative interpretations that justify an abrogation claim are contrary to the interpretations of the exegetes.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalsi, according to Abdul-Muta`aal Al-Jabri in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, page 90, said that the abrogating is the exception within 9:2, i.e., "But if they repent, establish prayer and give the alms, then let them go."

While 8:58 is general and 9:2 is specific and general does not abrogate specific; it augments it, I can see why an abrogation claim can be made here, because it looks like the polytheists who were singled out in 9:2 are covered under 8:58 with seemingly different treatment. Therefore, I concur with Ibn Al-Jawzi that 9:2 covers those who did not have a treaty already (because theirs has expired) and, therefore, 9:2 augments 8:58.

I can also see another angle for abrogation, which may very well be what the scholars thought, and that is existing treaties will not be honored if there is suspicion of betrayal. That is not abrogation; that's completing a ruling.

In my humble understanding, verse 9:2 gives a grace period to the polytheists, while 8:58 tells the Prophet (PBUH) that he should notify any people with whom he has a treaty and has a strong reason to believe that they are plotting against him or about to, to notify them that this action of theirs is a breech of the treaty. So, 9:2 is a special case singling out the polytheist. In fact, if one reads 9:1-15 as a unit, one realizes that the subject is hostile polytheists, the ones who would not live and let live.

I would've thought that scholars would claim that 9:2 abrogated 8:58, not the other way around, for two reasons: Chapter 9 was revealed after Chapter 8, and 9:2 may imply to some that all treaties are out. I'm glad none did because 9:2 does not abrogate anything; it simply augments 8:58 in that 8:58 remains valid for all people other than the hostile polytheists, which 9:1-15 is about. As for hostile polytheists, any treaty with them is the final one. After that it's either peaceful co-existence or war. No more treaties nor alliances.

How is this simple fact ignored by the claim?

For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (he said 9:2 contained its own abrogation in the exception within it, per Al-Jabri),
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Ali (implied),
Ibn As-Saa'ib (implied),
Ibn Abbaas, Qataada and Ad-Dhahhaak (implied),
Mujaahid, Al-Qurtubi, Az-Zahri (implied),
Al-Hasan (implied),
At-Tabari, Ar-Raazi, Al-Aloosi (according to Az-Zalmi),
Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Al-Jabri,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.