TheMostReadBook.org

That is something that Al-Areedh presents and strongly dismisses. He spends about a page out of four (329-332) to prove that acts of worship are never considered Sadaqa (charity) and therefore such argument is flawed. He may be right.

The other argument Al-Areedh knocks down is Al-Asfahaani's, namely that 58:12 was contingent upon distinguishing the true believers from the hypocrites and now that the distinction is done, the requirement is no longer necessary. Al-Areedh says that this sort of thing is exactly why abrogation occurs!

I disagree strongly with Al-Asfahaani on this. His reasoning has no foundation, neither in the language of the verse, nor in history. Ali was the only one who complied. What does that make of the rest of the Sahaaba?

Al-Areedh then presents a third refutation argument, one you suggested, Pragmatic, namely that the issue was to control the frivolous questions that Muslims bothered the Prophet (PBUH) with, wasting his time. Al-Areedh rejects that understanding but without offering a rebuttal other than his main arguments. They are that the words in 58:13 suggest abrogation.

Al-Areedh then makes a strange conclusion. He says that this is a lesson to Muslim rulers and legislators; that they should not feel awkward about rescinding their decisions once they realize they are a burden on Muslims, for God Himself abrogated His own ruling in ten days when He knew beforehand that Muslims will not bear it! Isn't that what البداء is, a change of mind based on favoring a new idea?

I like Al-Areedh, and I have grown to respect a number of mildly pro-abrogation and mildly anti-abrogation scholars for their thoughtful reasoning, most of the time at least . In this case, I agree with Al-Areedh that the arguments of Al-Khodari and Al-Asfahani are flawed.

However, I disagree that the wording of 58:13 suggests abrogation, as I discussed in the above posts about forgiving previous infractions without removing the requirement. I also disagree about his remark about the lesson for Muslim rulers. This is dangerously close to 'change of mind', and that's probably why he includes 'beforehand' at the end, which seems artificial in the context of what he is saying.

On page 157 of his book, Nada takes this into consideration and says 58:13 asks those who have difficulty paying "صدقات" not one "صدقة" according to the frequency of times that they wanted to talk to the Prophet (PBUH) to do the prayers and pay the alms. Up to that point, it makes sense although it is not completely compelling. He goes on to say that prayers and alms are a form of charity, but I am now convinced they are not, per

Nada reports on page 157 of his book that Ibn Al-Arabi casts doubt on the authenticity of the narrations attributed to Aly, may God be pleased with him, on this matter. Nada does not cite a reference for this, but at the end of the book, he includes a book by Ibn Al-Arabi called "Rulings of the Quran."

On page 156 of his book, Nada cites a similar opinion by Sayyed Qotb. Qotb adds that the time of the Prophet belonged to the nation at large, so it makes sense that someone who wanted to take part of it for private consultation should pay a compensation for the public in terms of a charity.

The first word in 58:13, أأشفقتم is key to understanding the verse and whether it has abrogated the previous verse, so it's prudent to actually learn what the word means. According to the dictionary لسان العرب,


The gist of it is that the word conveys the meanings of apprehension, worry, wariness that is motivated not by insecurity but by love, like that of a father toward his children's well being.

Thus, linguistically, Professor Muhammad Ali Mustafa's opinion in this previous post is validated, namely, that 58:13 addresses the uneasiness Muslims felt about offering a charity before consulting the Prophet (PBUH) privately. The only rational reason for such worry is that the Prophet told them that he and his household (أهل البيت) are not allowed to take charity.

In his book, Ihab gives detailed treatment of the 5 cases that Zaid accepted as abrogation in the Quran, which include this case. He also focusses on the word أشفقتم on page 341 and argues that 58:13 is addressed to those who could not afford the charity and felt bad about it in spite of the exemption in 58:12. He sees 58:13 as aimed at consoling them and giving them something to do instead to make them feel better. He argues that تاب in 58:13 does not imply an offense has occurred. He cites as evidence


Ironically, I used the same verse to argue earlier in this thread that تاب can mean forgiving past offenses without removing the prohibition for future offenses.

To elaborate, Ihab Hasan Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 341-342, makes three important points in refuting this claim:

1. That the key word أأشفقتم means that they feared giving a charity because they could not afford it and didn't know what to do. This confirms what I said earlier that they were so pious that they did not consider themselves exempt. That's why God revealed 58:13 to assure them that they are!
2. That وتاب الله عليكم mean that because God knew their earnest intention, He is pleased with them, not that they did something wrong and He pardoned them.
3. That God told them how to replace the charity for those who cannot afford it and are depressed because they can't. This reminds me of the verses,
   
   
   Where God tells the event of the earnest Muslims who wanted to join the Prophet in battle but he did not let them because he had no more horses for them to ride. They could not afford to buy their own horses and were depressed that they could not join the Prophet.

Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن devotes 7 pages to this claim, pages 411-417, and rightfully so since it is the only unanimous case claimed by the pro-abrogation folk. He points out a few additional points not already mentioned in the previous posts:

1. At-Tabari in his exegesis propounds the opinions on this abrogation claim but does not take either side. Az-Zalmi says that what he said implies however that he sees this as a license after a resolution (رخصة بعد عزيمة).
2. Ibn Abbaas said that it was the Zakah verse, 9:60, that abrogated 58:12. I may have read that opinion before.
3. Al-Qurtubi also propounds the opinions and does not take a position. However, Az-Zalmi reads in his writing that he sees this as an expansion (توسيع). He said that the 58:13 allows more than charity as a pre-requisite to consulting the Prophet (PBUH) privately.

Az-Zalmi is adamant that these two verses do not apply only to the Prophet (PBUH), refuting the argument of Al-Asfahaani who rejects the claim on the basis of temporary situation that has ended, i.e., sifting through the hypocrites as mentioned earlier. Az-Zalmi says that the same principle stated in 58:12 applies today and always to all heads of Muslim states.

Ironically, this is one of the handful times Az-Zalmi acknowledges Al-Asfahaani in his entire book, and when he does he knocks down his argument! I agree that Al-Asfahaani's argument here is poor, but the man had great arguments elsewhere which Az-Zalmi did not even bother referring to.

Weird. I can't think of a positive explanation.