Evidence from Sahaba narrations
...
Nothing new here, but the brief and pointed style of his writeup made it clear to me that this is the way to go in addressing Sahaba narrations. No need to go into authenticity or authority. We should only talk about the meaning of نسخ as they used it, with concrete examples ad nauseum to drive the point home.
The other arguments, based on authenticity or authority, are more vulnerable to debate, and given the huge number of Sahaba narrations about abrogation, the simple compelling argument about mismatched meanings was a good choice by Al-Zalmi to refute this entire category of evidence. We should mention that we are not getting into the authenticity or authority issues and justify that by the fact that they are not needed given the linguistic angle, but we should mention that pro-abrogation scholars have also dismissed many of these narrations (with concrete examples) to put the reader at ease in this delicate territory.
I agree, especially with your last statement. I don't think that one argument alone will work. I agree totally that the word naskh means much more than abrogation and its most common use is "to copy or edit", but the fact that the majority of scholars, beginning with the fellows of Ibn Mas`ood (RA), have restricted its meaning to abrogation and built hundreds of cases and wrote scores of books on that basis cannot be ignored. That has to be countered by how they knocked down each other's arguments. This is why I think that the posts titled "Who said what" in each of the cases we discussed is so important. In every case, there is a sizable number of credible scholars who rejected the claim. That's a powerful argument by itself. Because if there is no consensus, it is better to err on the side of caution, i.e., accept that there is no abrogation because the other side means to suspend or reverse a ruling of God!
As for authentication of narrations which stated that naskh has occurred, I think that, in addition to highlighting that their use of the word meant other than abrogation, we can also propound what the scholars of authentication have said about those narrations. This, of course, is a huge undertaking, so I suggest that we focus on authenticating the narrations which asserted the "big three" abrogation cases for starters. These are
8:66/8:65,
58:13/58:12 and
73:20/73:1-4. Let's do that in the topic discussing each case separately.