The response [to this is as follows-}: This opinion is contingent upon proving that the present verse was revealed [at a point] subsequent to the sword verse. This is impossible to establish. Moreover, as we explained, there is no need to maintain abrogation, regardless of whether the sword verse followed or preceded this verse.

٤. According to some, the Imam has the right, in all circumstances, to kill the cap‌ tive, enslave him, ask for ransom, or set him free on grace. This opinion has been related by Abu Tali).a on the authority of Ibn Abbas and has been adopted by a num‌ ber of scholars, among whom are Ibn Umar, al-I:Iasan, Ata (who is a follower of the Maliki rite), al-ShafiI, al-Thawri, Abu Ubayd, and others. This opinion does not regard the verse as having been abrogated.١٥٢ Al-Nai).i).as, after citing this opin‌ ion, says: "This is so because both these verses are precise and were acted upon. This is a correct opinion because abrogating takes place with something absolute. But if it is possible to act upon the two verses, then the view about their abrogation is mean‌ ingless. This opinion has been related on the authority of the scholars of Medina, as well as al-ShafiI and AbU Ubayd."l٥٣
The response [to this is as follows]. This opinion, although it does not necessitate abrogation of the verse, is also baseless. The reason is that the verse is precise in stating that the grace and the ransom occur after the enemy is weakened. Thus, any opinion that states these two actions are admissible before that condition is met is an opinion contrary to the Quran. Likewise, the injunction to kill in the verse is limited to the period before the enemy is weakened. Thus, any opinion that admits the kill‌ ing after it would be contrary to the Quran also. As mentioned earlier, the sword verse has been restricted by this verse.
As for the argument that this opinion is derived from the practice of the Prophet, who [was said to have] killed some captives, ransomed others, and set others free out of grace, this narrative, if admitted as sound, does not provide evidence of a choice between killing and the other alternatives, for it is possible that the one group of captives was killed before exhausting the enemy and that the others were ransomed and set free on grace after it. As for what has been related about the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar, assuming it is true, it has no evidentiary value, because it is clearly in contradiction to the stated instructions of the Quran.

(٣٣) The beggar and the outcast had a share in their [the godfearing people] wealth.
(Q. ٥١:١٩).
(٣٤) Those [the righteous persons] in whose wealth is a right known (f:taqqun ma tum)
[for the beggar and the outcast.] (Q. ٧٠:٢٤)

A difference of opinion has occurred over whether thesetwo verses have been ab‌ rogated or whether they are precise (mul:zkam). The point of the dispute is that "a right known," which has been ordered in both verses, could refer to the ordained zaklit (alms), or could be a financial obligation other than the zaklit, which is rec‌ ommended rather than obligatory. Thus, if the "right" or the "share" is another obligation besides the zaklit, then the two verses have definitely been abrogated. This is so because zakat abrogated all other forms of obligatory benevolent charity ( adaqa)
In other words, they maintain that whether the "right known" is the zaklit itself or