TheMostReadBook.org

This is another case which I don't recall seeing mentioned elsewhere that Al-Ghaali reported in his book بالحجة والبرهان لا نسخ في القرآن, pages 125-129. The claim is that

was abrogated by

Or by the sword verse, 9:5.

He refutes the claim on the basis that 9:28 specified an exception for the polytheists. The main point that caused the abrogation claims is the the understanding that the verse speaks of the disbelievers. This understanding is based mostly on the circumstances of revelation. Al-Ghaali quotes Rasheed Ridha saying that a deduction foundation rule states: العبرة بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب (the lesson learned is from the generality of the word, not from the specificity of the cause). He says that the verse is intended for all times.

Al-Ghaali offers a good point to support his assertion that the verse speaks of the believers: it describes those going to the Sacrosanct Mosque as people who "seek bounty from their Lord and approval", which, he says, does not fit the polytheists.

Al-Ghaali propounds scholars opinions as follows:

• Ash-Sha`bi said this was the only verse in Chapter 5 that was abrogated.
• Qataada sees the entire verse abrogated by 9:5 and 9:28. So said Ibn Abbaas.
• At-Tabari says the only part abrogated is "nor the sacred month" because consensus has been that it is permissible to fight during the sacred months.
• Ibn Salaama and Al-Baarizi both said that the abrogated part was "nor heading to the Sacrosanct Home."
• Muqaatil said the sword verse was the abrogating.
• Al-Asfahhani said that the verse talks about the disbelievers with whom the Prophet (PBUH) had a treaty. After Chapter 9, all treaties ended and therefore the contingency of this verse no longer holds. That's why, he said, the verse wasn't abrogated.
• Ibn Jurayj said this verse talks about forbidding the interruption of pilgrims on their way to the Sacrosanct Mosque. This was supported by `Ataa'.
• Al-Hasan said there is nothing in Chapter 5 that was abrogated.

For:
Ibn Abbaas,
Ash-Sha`bi,
Qataada,
Muqaatil,
At-Tabari,
Ibn Salaama,
Al-Baarizi.

Against:
Ibn Jurayj (implied),
`Ataa',
Al-Hasan,
Abu-Maysara,
Mujaahid,
Al-Asfahaani,
Ibn Al`Arabi,
Al-Jassaas,
Muhammad Al-Khudhari (Bek),
M. Rasheed Ridha,
Husaam Al-Ghaali,
Jamaal `Ataaya.

Jamaal `Ataaya discusses this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 406-408, and refutes it. He does that in the context of his discussion about the openness of text in the Quran and what it signifies. The point he is stressing in that discussion is that open text is meant to outline a default framework within which specific commands operate.

He sees 5:2 as talking about Muslims and how they should treat each other at pilgrimage time. He does not see it as referring to polytheists at all. On that interpretation alone, there can be no cause for abrogation.

What he takes from the verse is that Muslims must not prevent other Muslims from performing the pilgrimage duty regardless of political or other differences they may have. It has indeed happened that during the caliphate of Al-Waleed ibn Abdil-Malik, Muslims who sided with Abdullah ibn Az-Zubayr against Al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf Ath-Thaqafi were prevented from performing the Hajj that year. That should never have happened, per 5:2.

The flip side of this is also emphasized in the same verse, "And do not let the hatred of some folk that they prevented you from the Sacrosanct Mosque, do not let that cause you to transgress."

`Ataaya also brings attention to the word القلائد in 5:2 and explains that it means everything that the pilgrims wear on them, such as watches, pendants, rings, bracelets, etc. Verse 5:2 prohibits a Muslim from robbing pilgrims of these ornaments.