Is the legal jurisprudential expression: "What has not been abrogated in its time among rulings, falls," correct? Does it apply to the permissibility of polygyny? And did Umar ibn Al-Khattab withhold Zakat from those whose hearts were to be reconciled because its time had passed?

The share for "those whose hearts are to be reconciled" remains as long as the need for their reconciliation exists, and it ceases when this need vanishes. As for polygyny, similar to the share for "those whose hearts are to be reconciled," it is a ruling that remains in Islam as long as its underlying reason persists, and it ceases when that reason no longer exists. However, this does not mean the annulment of the ruling, because polygyny was legislated for benefits such as a man's need, protecting women's chastity, and increasing progeny. These benefits are still present; in fact, the need for polygyny in our era is more urgent due to the increased numbers of women, divorcees, and spinsters. Nullifying religious rulings under the pretext that their time has passed opens the door for the ignorant to dismiss other rituals of Islam. Faith necessitates submission to Allah's rulings and His law.