provides proof that no abrogation is involved. This is because the verse shows that fighting, from the beginning, was not obligatory for all the Muslims. How, then, could it be the abrogator of the verse under discussion?

(٢٥) God pardon you! W,hy did you give them leave, till it was clear to you which of them spoke the truth, and you knew the liars? (Q. ٩:٤٣)

Those who believe in God and the Last Day ask not leave of you, that they may struggle with their possessions and their selves; and God knows those who keep their duty [to Him]. (Q. ٩:٤٤)

According to Ibn Abbas, al-I:Iasan, Ikrima, and Qatada, these verses were abrogated by Gods saying, "So, when they ask you for leave for some affair of their own, give leave to whom you will of them" (Q. ٢٤:٦٢).
The truth is that no abrogation is involved in these three verses. This is because
they are explicit that the ban on the permission to stay behind, and the reproval of the Prophet for having allowed it, are specifically in the context in which the truthful are not distinct from the false. Furthermore, God clarifies that it was [those] other than the believers who used to seek the Prophets permission to stay behind, in order to avoid fighting for him. Consequently, He ordered the Prophet not to grant leave for those whose intentions were not clear to him. However, if the intention were clear, then God permitted the believers to seek leave from the Prophet to attend to some of their affairs, and the Prophet was permitted to grant leave to anyone he wished among them. Accordingly, between the two verses there is no contradiction for one of them to be abrogated by the other.

(٢٦) It is not for the people of the City, and for the Bedouins who dwell around them, to stay behind Gods Messenger, and to prefer their lives to his. (Q. ٩:١٢٠)

Ibn Zayd maintains that this verse was abrogated by Gods saying, "And the believers should not all go out to fight" (Q. ٩:١٢٢).
Here, too, the fact is that there was no abrogation, for [the theme of] verse ١٢٢ is a continuation of verse ١٢٠. The purport of the verses is that the obligation to par‌ ticipate in the jihad falls on Muslims only to the extent of the requirements of repre‌ sentational duty [kijQya, in which its performance by a sufficient number relieves others from undertaking it]. Hence, the second verse does not abrogate the first. It is true that participation in the jihad is obligatory for all Muslims if the circumstances so require, or if the lawfully invested authority demands it, or if there are other ur‌ gent factors that may require it. This obligation, however, is not the same as the rep‌ resentational obligation of the jihad that is established for Muslims on the basis of a legal principle itself. Both obligations remain effective, and have not been abrogated.

(٢٧) And follow you what is revealed to you; and be you patient until God shall judge;
and He is the best of judges. (Q. ١٠:١٠٩)

According to Ibn Zayd, this verse was abrogated by the one in which the believers are commanded to undertake jihad and be ruthless against disbelievers.١٣٤ The in‌ validity of this opinion is obvious in the light of what we said in refuting the abroga-