obligation is continuity and perpetuity. It is not possible to uphold both these aspects together in the verse. To be sure, there is no other payment due after the zakat. There‌ fore, one is necessarily faced with disposing of one of the two ostensible senses: first, denying the obligatory aspect of the ordinance but accept the ruling as continuous and everlasting, which entails that a recommended payment [rather than an obliga‌ tory one] is instituted forever; and second, denying the continuous_ and everlasting aspect of the injunction but accepting its obligatory aspects. This entails that the rul‌ ing will eventually be abrogated. There is nothing to make the second position pre‌ ponderate over the first one; rather, the preponderance is for the first position. Two points provide evidence for this preponderance:

l. The numerous traditions reported on the authority of the infallible Imams reveal the continuation of this [payment] due as a recommended action. We discussed these traditions previously.
٢. Had this due been obligatory, knowledge of it would have spread among the Com‌
panions and the subsequent generations of the Muslims, and would not have been restricted to Ikrima, al-PaQ.I)ak, or to one or two others.

To conclude, the opinion that is to be accepted is that there existed another rec‌ ommended [payment] due regarding fruits and crops. This is the opinion of the Imamite Shiites, and hence, there is no reason to maintain the abrogation of this particular passage.

(٢٠) Say: I do not find, in what is revealed to me, aught forbidden to him who eats thereof except [if] it be carrion, or blood outpoured, or the flesh of swine-that is an abomina‌ tion, or an ungodly thing that has been hallowed to other than God; yet [to] whoso is constrained, not desiring, nor transgressing, surely your Lord is All-forgiving, All‌ compassionate. (٦:١٤٥).

According to a group of scholars, this passage was abrogated by the Prophets sub‌
sequent prohibition of certain things that are not mentioned in this verse.
The truth is that no abrogation occurred concerning this verse. This is because the purport of the verse is to declare that the only forbidden food is that mentioned in it, and it includes only such foods that were forbidden at the time of its revelation. More‌ over, there is no ground for claiming that it was abrogated, for abrogation does not occur with declarative sentences. Consequently, this leads to one of two conclusions: first, that the restriction in the verse is incidental. Indeed, the nonbelievers had for‌ bidden themselves certain items, and these were not forbidden in the divine law. This is indicated by the narrative of the previous verses. The second possible conclusion is that it should be required that the restriction in the verse be essential, and that the for‌ bidden items at the time of the revelation of this passage were limited to those men‌ tioned in it. This verse belongs to the Mekka period of revelation, and after its revela‌ tion several other things were prohibited, for the rulings used to be revealed gradually.
It is clear that prohibition of one thing after another does not mean abrogation of a thing. Moreover, the restriction being essential makes it the weightier of the two possibilities mentioned above, and the closer one to the customary understanding. Nevertheless, there was no abrogation in the meaning of the passage, even if there‌ striction was incidental, as clarified.