Farghali, in his book النسخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 11-14, starts out his defense of the abrogation doctrine by quoting 2:219 and says that "there is no indication in it for prohibition, only a preparation for prohibition when it is issued." While that is true, there is no indication in it for allowance either! It is simply a statement of fact: there are in alcoholic beverages benefits for people, but their harm is bigger.
This becomes important when he later claims its abrogation by 5:90. He was smart enough to zero in on what part of 2:219 was abrogated. He said it was the part that says there are benefits in them for people. He tried to explain that by quoting scholars interpretations of what those benefits were,
- Ibn Habeeb said the benefit was that it makes a depressed person feel better.
- Makki said it was the pleasure that one experiences from drinking.
- He, Farghali, opines that the benefit is in money earned making and trading it.
I find Farghali's opinion to be smart. The rest of scholars seem to have focused on drinking even though the verse does not.
But, if we accept any of those interpretations, how is any of them abrogated, i.e., canceled? 5:90 does not say that there are no longer any benefit to alcoholic beverages! They still make a depressed person feel better. Most drinkers will tell you it gives them pleasure. Makers and traders of alcoholic beverages still make money! All of these are facts, not rulings. They cannot be abrogated.
Therefore, the only way to prove abrogation of 2:219 is to prove that it has permitted drinking and Farghali didn't try.
Next, he quotes 4:43 as evidence that intoxication was partially allowed but forbidden at prayer times. To prove that point he quotes the man he admires the most, Shaafi`i, who actually disproves his point! Shaafi`i said, in his book الرسالة, pages 120-121,
فدل القرآن والله أعلم على أن لا صلاة لسكران حتى يعلم ما يقول إذ بدأ بنهيه عن الصلاة وذكر معه الجنب فلم يختلف أهل العلم على ألا صلاة لجنب حتى يتطهر
Translation: Thus, the Quran showed, and God knows more, that there is no prayer for a drunkard until he can distinguish what he says. He mentioned with that the one soiled from ejaculation and people of scholarship have not differed on the ruling that there is no prayer for one soiled from ejaculation until he bathes.
I'm surprised that smart Farghali didn't get that even after quoting Shaafi`i. It's the prayer that's forbidden in those circumstances. Verse 4:43 has no ruling on drinking alcohol.
When he gets to 5:90, he quotes Ibn Jareer (At-Tabari) saying that because people stopped drinking during prayer times after 4:43 was revealed and stopped drinking altogether after 5:90 was revealed, that this proves that 2:219 was clearly abrogated!
Ironically, Farghali wrote, on pages 31, 35, about the issue of البراءة الأصلية (default allowance), defined as the assumption of allowance in the absence of disallowing legislation. He emphasized that a ruling that disallows what was allowed before by default is not called an abrogation but new legislation. He's right, of course, but why didn't he follow his own words when he claimed abrogation of 2:219?