He says that exegetists have concluded from 4:43 that drinking was allowed and we know it no longer is, hence the assertion of abrogation by many scholars. The problem with this logic is that 4:33 does not say that drinking was allowed. It only says that drinking and praying is not allowed, and that is still the case.
To elaborate further, consider
which excuses the sick and the travelers from having to fast. Does this verse allow traveling
or does it disallow it? Neither! It has no ruling on traveling; it rules on fasting while traveling. If it wanted to rule on traveling, it would've said something like, "Don't travel
while fasting." Instead, it says, "Don't fast while traveling
The point is that 4:43 describes a condition
a person is in, it does not rule on what caused the condition.
Notice also that 4:43 mentions another condition: being soiled from ejaculation. Again, it has no ruling on that, it only says that a person must not approach prayer in that condition unless he is just passing by and won't participate in the prayer.
The only ruling and command in 4:43 is "Do not approach prayer..." To say that 4:43 is abrogated is to say that it is now OK to approach a prayer drunk and soiled! No scholar has ever said that. The implicit assumption the pro-abrogation scholars made, that the verse implies that drinking was allowed, is therefore erroneous. The only implicit assumption that can logically be taken from 4:43 is that it may be OK to do things other than prayer while drunk or soiled.