Arrangement of a discourse creates specific meaning which is over and above the sum total of the whole. If we disregard the arrangement of the text we can never reach to the intended conclusions.
For example, we see that Abū Bakr Siddīq, when he faced the crucial question of dealing with those who had refused to pay the zakāh, argued on the basis of the Qur’ān that the Almighty allowed fighting such rebels. He held that those who did not offer regular ṣalāh could not be, as per clear Qur’ānic assertion, considered part of the Muslim community and, on that account, the believers had been allowed to fight them. He drew the attention of the people to the fact that the Holy Qur’ān frequently mentions the obligation of paying the zakāh with the duty of offering the ṣalāh. Thus, a mention of the zakāh in the Holy Qur’ān adjacent to the ṣalāh reveals to us, he argued, its status in the Divine Law. This proves that if we do not consider the guidance provided by the given order and arrangement of the Book we will definitely lose many aspects of the meaning of the word of God.
Another example of the kind may not be out of place here: God has guided us to the fact that ribā (usury) in its essence is just opposite to the zakāh. God has declared war on those who devour ribā. Those, who refuse to pay the zakāh, by analogy, merit similar treatment.