(٥) ٠ you who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may ward off [evil]. (Q. ٢:١٨٣)

It is claimed that this passage was abrogated by what God, the Exalted, says, "It is made lawful for you to go unto your wives on the night of the fast" (Q. ٢:١٨٧).
In support of this abrogation, they mention the following reason: In the begin‌
ning the obligatory fast for the community was similar to the obligatory fast for the preceding community. One of its rulings was that if a person went to sleep before the evening meal in the month of Ramaqan, it was not permissible for him to eat after waking up during that night. And if someone among them went to sleep in the late afternoon, food, drink, and women were forbidden to him. Thus, this was abrogated by Gods saying, "And eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you" (Q. ٢:١٨٧), as well as by His saying, "It is made lawful for you to go unto your wives on the night of the fast" (Q. ٢:١٨٧).
At one point, Sunni scholars were in agreement that the verse making [sexual intercourse] lawful [during the nights of the month of Ramaqan] is an abrogating verse.٢٣ Later, however, they disagreed. Some maintained that it abrogated the pre‌ ceding verse. They did this by inferring from the verse that the obligatory fasting mentioned in the Islamic Sharia was similar to the obligatory fasting among the earlier communities. This opinion is held by Aba al-Aliya and Ata, and it is attributed by al-Nal)J:tas to al-Suddi also.٢٤ Others, however, say that the verse granting permis‌ sion actually abrogated what they used to do [rather than permitting it].
Clearly, the first verse can be abrogated only if it is possible to establish that it was revealed before the second verse, and this is not po sible
tains such an opinion to prove it. Moreover, the purport of the comparison in the verse between the fast of this community and the fast of earlier ones must be one of show‌ ing resemblance. This is contrary to how the verse has traditionally been understood; indeed, it is contrary to the stated sense of the verse. The intention of the verse is to compare the two fasts from the point of view that both were divinely prescribed. There is nothing in the verse to suggest that the two kinds of fasting are similar and there‌ fore substantiate the claim of abrogation. If it were to be established that [the com‌ parison of the two types of fasting] is dependent upon some external factors, then the abrogation would effect a ruling that is not in the Quran, in which case the mat‌ ter would be beyond the scope of this work.

(٦) And for those who can afford it, there is a ransom (yu(iqan): the feeding of a man in need. But whoso does good of his own accord, it is better for him. (Q. ٢:١٨٤)

It is asserted that this passage has been abrogated by the following verse, in which God, the Exalted, says, "And whoever of you is present, let him fast for the month" (Q. ٢:١٨٥).
The claim about abrogation in this verse [is based on ransom (fawq)]. Abroga‌ tion would have been self-evident if the meaning of tawq were "ease" and "ability." If such had been the case, the verse would mean that whoever can fast has the choice not to fast, and can give a ransom, in its place, such as feeding the poor. Consequently, the verse would certainly have been abrogated.