TheMostReadBook.org

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi writes that the part ولا يحل لكم أن تأخذوا مما آتيتموهن شيئا (And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what you have given them) in

was abrogated by the subsequent exception إلا أن يخافا ألا يقيما حدود الله (unless both fear that they will not be able to keep [within] the limits of God).

The majority of scholars have agreed that exceptions are not abrogation. In fact, Ibn Hazm was one of those scholars!

Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam did the same thing in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 98-111. He quoted Ibn Abbaas saying that this was a case of exception, yet Ibn Salaam called it a case of naskh. Clearly, he, as many others have done, understood naskh in its general meaning as amendment, not restricted to the specific meaning of abrogation.

My biggest problem with the very weak cases that violate obvious rules is that they cast doubt on the credibility of the author. There are other things he may be writing that I would normally take on face value since I have no reason not to, but with shaken credibility I don't know what to think.

To be fair to the man, who is a recognized and lauded scholar, he lists the abrogation cases as if they were obvious facts without any comment, not even a reference to who said they were so. It is possible that he was reporting what has been said and not initiating opinion. I wish he elaborated a bit.

Yes, but in the absence of comment attributing the case to others or objecting to it, the case becomes sanctioned by being included. It's his book.

For:
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ibn Salaama.
P.S. Ibn Abbaas is quoted as proponent of this claim, but he used the word استثنى ("excepted").

Against:
The majority, according to Ibn Al-Jawzi,
Ibn Al-Jawzi (who said 2:229 is about Khul` not divorce),
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Az-Zalmi.