One of the examples frequently mentioned in classic and recent books to support that abrogation is not only possible but did happen, is the story of the sacrifice. In that story, Abraham tells his only son, Ishmael, peace be upon them, that he saw in a dream that he is slaughtering him. Ishmael tells him to obey God's order. Then God abrogates the command, the pro-abrogation folk claim.
Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 103, mentions this as one of the arguments Az-Zurqaani used in his book مناهل العرفان to prove the abrogation doctrine. `Ataaya refutes it as a test of faith not an abrogation. In other words, the command was not intended to be carried out, therefore it cannot be abrogated.
I'd rephrase it differently. The command was contingent
. The contingency is compliance out of faith. A contingent ruling cannot be abrogated unless the contingency remains. If the contingency goes away, so does the ruling. This is our validation rule #10
In the story of the sacrifice, as well the command of fifty prayers that were reduced to five, as well the 8:66/8:65 abrogation claim
, in all of these instances we have commands that are contingent on compliance. The commands were not intended; the compliance was. The subsequent relief in all those cases was not an abrogation, but rather a reward for passing the compliance test. They would have been cases of abrogation if the addressee did not comply