٣. The first tradition among these is based on a chain of transmission that does not go back to the source of the narrative (mursal). The fact is that Ibn al-Musayyib was born two years after the [end of the] caliphate of Umar; ١٩ hence, his report is too far removed from Umar to be acceptable without an intermediary. However, even if we were to concede its reliability, it still consists of a narrative about Umars act, which, in itself has no evidentiary nature. As for the second report, it is weak, and with a chain of transmission that does not go back to the source of the narrative. The third tradition, assuming that it is reliable, is generally applicable, and capable of being restricted to the payment of half the amount of the blood money.

To conclude, the verse under consideration is not proved to have been abrogated by any means. The claim to its having been abrogated is based on the legal opinion of a group of jurists. How can it be possible to desist from what God says by taking into consideration what X or Z says about the matter? What is astonishing is that a group of jurists should issue its ruling against the Quran, in spite of its consensus that the Quran cannot be abrogated by a single tradition. Indeed, it has become clear from this discussion that Gods saying that "whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power to his heir" (Q. ١٧:٣٣), [and His saying that] "and there is life for you in re‌ taliation, ٠ men of understanding" (Q. ٢:١٧٩) do not qualify as abrogators of the verse under discussion, which differentiates between a man and a woman, and be‌ tween a freeman and a slave. We will present a complete discussion on this matter when we offer our exegesis of the verse under consideration.

(٤) It is prescribed for you, when one of you approaches death, if he leaves wealth, that he bequeath to p rents
off [evil]. (Q. ٢:١٨٠)

A group has claimed that this verse has been abrogated by the inheritance (mawarfth) verse. Others have claimed that it was abrogated by a tradition in which the Prophet says, "A bequest in favor of an heir at law is inadmissible."٢٠
The fact is that the verse has not been abrogated. As for the opinion that it has been abrogated by the inheritance verse, this is refuted by the fact that the verses indicate that the inheritance is regulated [according to the inheritance verse] only when there are neither a last will and testament nor outstanding debts. Accordingly, how can one argue that it abrogates the injunction regarding the last will? In explaining the reason for its abrogation, it is maintained that in the early days of Islam, inheri‌ tance was not fixed the way it was done in the Islamic law later on. All of the estate used to pass on to the children of the deceased, and what was given to the parents was left through a will. Consequently, this verse was abrogated by the verse about inheritance.
This opinion is refuted by the following points:

١. It was not proved-although it was included in the compilation of al-Bukhan‌ because it was established, through a consensus among Muslim scholars, that abro‌ gation cannot be effected by a single narration.
٢. This opinion can be sustained only if the inheritance verse was subsequent to the abrogated verse, and how can those who maintain this abrogation prove such a chro‌ nology? As for the claim that this chronology is a definite one, as maintained by some I:Ianafi scholars, it is upon them to prove it.