The Imam al- adiq
escorted by seventy thousand angels until it was brought down to Mul:lammad (peace be upon him and his progeny). Therefore, exalt it and honor it, for Gods name is mentioned in seventy places in it. If people were to know the virtues of reciting it, they would not leave it ever. ١١ ٩

Another tradition is reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas. He said, "The Surat at-Anam was revealed in Mekka all at once during the night, having been surrounded by seventy thousand angels, fervently praying around it with the praises [ofGod]." ١٢٠
What is certain is that the obligation to pay the zakat was revealed in Medina.
Accordingly, how can one say that the verse in question was revealed in connection with the zakat? Al-Zajjaj relates that it is said that the passage was revealed in Medina.١٢١ This opinion is contrary to the numerous earlier traditions, and it is, more‌ over, an uninformed opinion.
Third, the payment ordained in the verse is to be made on "the harvest day." There‌ fore, it has to be something other than thezakat, because the latter is paid after clean‌ ing and measuring. Another point that proves that this payment due is not the zakat is [provided by] the traditions reported, on the authority of the Imams, regarding the prohibition to.harvest during the night, [which was done], according to some of these traditions, [so that] the poor and the unfortunate [would not be] deprived of their share.١٢٢ [In fact], Jafar b. Mul)ammad b. Ibrahim relates on the authority of Jafar b. Mul)ammad [al- adiq],
father-that the Prophet prohibited harvesting dates and other produce at night.
Explaining the reason, Jafar said, "He did that for the sake of the poor." ١٢٣
As for what is said in explaining the meaning of this part of the verse-namely, that it is possible that "harvest day" refers to the time when the payable dues are calculated, not the time when they are paid-this is certainly erroneous. The reason is [twofold]:

١. This is surely contrary to the apparent sense of the verse as understood by common usage of the language, and, in fact, is almost contrary to its explicit sense. The rea‌ son is that ["harvest day"] is attached to the meaning of the verb, and not to its form. Thus, when, [for example], it is said, "Pay respect to Zayd on Friday," it means that Friday is the day on which the respect is to be paid, and not the time at which it becomes obligatory.
٢. The zakat does not become obligatory on harvest day; rather, the [payment] due be‌
comes attached to the goods when the seeds begin to form and the name of wheat or barley becumes applicable to them. Consequently, the mention of "harvest day" in the verse is a definitive proof that this [payment] due is not the zakat. Another thing which confirms that the [payment] due is not the zakat is that God, the Exalted, has forbidden extravagance in this verse. Such an injunction is not in harmony with the zakat, which was already fixed at a tenth and half a tenth [of untrellised produce]. Once it is clear that the [item] due, which the verse ordains for payment, is other than the obligatory zakat, then the zakat cannot be regarded as abrogating it.

In short, the claim to the abrogation of the passage depends on proving that there is another payment due on the crops so that it would be abrogated by the zaklit obli‌ gation. However, those who maintain the abrogation cannot establish that because the ostensible sense of an imperative is obligation, and the ostensible meaning of