In his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, Ali Hasan Al-Areedh lists 13 evidences that he believes prove that abrogation did occur in the Quran. So, let's go through them.
1. Verse 16:101. Pragmatic
has shown clearly that this verse unambiguously proves that the abrogated verse is no longer in existence. Thus, the verse cannot be used to prove the abrogation doctrine, i.e., that there are abrogated verses in the written text of the Quran. The verse can only prove that
replacement of verses has occurred.
2. Verse 2:106.
We've shown that it only proves that abrogation may occur, not that it has. We also showed that the context clearly refers to abrogation of the Torah, an interpretation which most exegetists agree on.
3. Verse 13:39. This verse asserts the general unlimited will of God. It cannot be narrowed down to prove that abrogation did occur, only that it can.
We've also shown that it proves replacement, not abrogation. Pragmatic further discussed its context in
this post.
4. Verse 4:160,
This verse clearly proves that abrogation did occur in the law of Moses. It doesn't even prove that it occurred in the Torah! So, how can that be used to prove that it occurred in the Quran?
5. Verses 87:6-7,
These verses only prove that some verses may be caused to be forgotten. They do not prove that verses can be or have been abrogated. Even Al-Areedh himself lists the consensus of scholars, such as Ibn Katheer, Al-Khaazin, Al-Baghwi and Abus-Su`ood on that interpretation.
6. Verse 10:15,
This verse, he asserts, proves that replacement of Quranic verses is possible. Sure, but it doesn't prove that it was done. We've discussed this verse in
this prior post.
7. That there are abrogated verses in the Quran. That's right, he proves X is true by observing that X is true! He asserts his five cases as if they are clear evidence, when in fact each one can be refuted.
8. That abrogation occurred in the Sunna. How can that prove that it did in the Quran?
9. Consensus of the scholars. We've shown that the consensus is not there because the scholars in fact agree on only one abrogation case, 58:13/58:12. Al-Areedh admits that in addition to Al-Asfahaani, many modern scholars, such as Imaam Muhammad Abduh have rejected the abrogation doctrine.
He asks, "How can the opinions of glorious Sahaba and their followers and prominent scholars be set aside?" Well, the scholars set aside each other's opinions. He did the same by narrowing down the number of abrogation cases to five, so shouldn't he ask that question to himself first?
10. Logically, it is possible. Sure, but how can that prove it happened?
11. If prior revelations were not abrogated then they are still valid. Prior revelations were abrogated by the Quran, but how does that prove that the Quran has abrogated verses. It only proves that the Quran has abrogat
ing verses.
12. That anti-abrogation folk accept that timed rulings come to an end. Al-Areedh says that abrogated verses are timed rulings, except that we did not know they were timed and only God knew. Nice theory, but the question is: how did
he know they were abrogated or timed?
13. That abrogation did occur in prior laws. That does not automatically lead to the conclusion that it has happened in the Quran, only that it can happen in Islamic law.
I hope I did not imply any disrespect to the sheikh and if any of what I said comes across as such, I apologize. I only wanted to point out the flaws in the evidences he quoted.