and none of them opposed it, how can its abrogation be permissible, [and when could it have been abrogated] (17)? If it were abrogated during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), then how was it acted upon after its abrogation, and how could its abrogation have remained hidden such that it did not reach his caliphs, given the fame of the story of Khaybar and their actions regarding it? Where, then, was the narrator of the abrogation, such that he did not mention it and did not inform them of it?

As for what they argued with, the answer to the hadith of Rafi' is from four aspects: First, he explained what is forbidden in his hadith with something whose corruption is not differed upon, for he said: "We were among the Ansar who had the most land, so we used to rent the land on the condition that we have this portion, and they have that portion, and sometimes this one would produce and that one would not, so he prohibited us from that. As for gold and silver, he did not prohibit us." Agreed upon (18). And in one wording: "As for something known and guaranteed, there is no harm in it." This is outside the scope of the dispute, so there is no proof in it against it, nor is there any contradiction between the two hadiths. The second is that his report came regarding renting for a third or a quarter, while the dispute is over muzara'a (sharecropping), and his hadith did not point to it at all; and his hadith which contains muzara'a is to be interpreted as renting as well, because the incident is one, narrated with different wordings, so it is necessary to interpret one of the two wordings in a way that corresponds with the other. The third is that the hadiths of Rafi' are very inconsistent, differing in many ways, which necessitates refraining from acting upon them if they stood alone, so how could they be prioritized over a hadith like ours? Imam Ahmad said: "The hadith of Rafi' is of various types." He also said: "The hadith of Rafi' is diverse." Ibn al-Mundhir said: "Reports have come from Rafi' with defects that indicate that the prohibition was for that [specific reason], among them what we mentioned, and among them five others." Two jurists among the jurists of the Companions rejected it: Zayd ibn Thabit and Ibn 'Abbas. Zayd ibn Thabit said: "I am more knowledgeable about that than he is. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) only heard two men who had quarreled, so he said: 'If this is your state of affairs, then do not rent the farms.'" Narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Athram (20). And al-Bukhari (20) narrated from 'Amr ibn Dinar,