TheMostReadBook.org

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi states that

was abrogated by

the part that says وبعولتهن أحق بردهن في ذلك (And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period]). Ismail ibn Abi-Uways (Maalik's nephew) agrees.

An-Nahhaas and Ibn Salaama said that it was abrogated by the three-time limit in


I don't see why there may be a case of abrogation here. 2:228 simply says that the husband can change his mind about divorce during the grace period while 2:229-230 state that there is a limit of 3 final divorces allowed. Where is the contradiction?

I may be cynical here, but I see that a disproportionate number of abrogation cases have to do with either marriage and divorce rulings or tolerance towards non-Muslims .

Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa, in his book لانسخ في القرآن, offers an explanation that reconciles 2:228 and 2:229, with which he refutes Al-Andalusi's claim. He says that 2:229 specifies the number of times a man may divorce his wife but change his mind and take her back. He says that 2:228 gives him the right to take her back during these times, i.e., a man can take his wife whom he divorced once, twice or three times, during the grace period, but after the grace period following the third time, he can't.

That is certainly what Islamic law has ruled throughout the centuries. Indeed, there is no abrogation between 2:228 and 2:229.

For:
Al-Hasan,
Ikrima (according to At-Tabari, said Dr. Zayd),
Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi,
Ismail ibn Abi-Uways,
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
An-Nahhaas,
Makki,
Ibn Salaama.

Against:
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,
Dr. Ahmad Hijaazi As-Saqqa.