Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, page 116, discusses the abrogation cases that Makki studied and presented in his book الإيضاح لناسخ القرآن ومنسوخه. His conclusion is that Makki approved only 6 abrogation claims. The rest of the cases Makki studied were cases of specification/exception (about 20 cases), cases of statements of fact (another twenty), cases of promises/threats, cases of abrogating pre-Islamic practices (another twenty or so) and over 30 cases where he reconciled the apparent conflict.
This is significant because all other references to Makki's studies imply that he approved over 60 claims of abrogation. So, what we have here is scholar disagreements about what other scholars have actually said!
I intend, God willing, to read Makki's book and see for myself if Al-Jabri was right in his analysis about what Makki wrote.
Al-Jabri then quickly dismisses one of the claims which he said Makki confidently approved: 60:9/60:8
, on the basis of contingency. He said that Makki acknowledged the contingency but nevertheless ruled it an abrogation.
This shows, if Al-Jabri is right, that Makki disagreed about what constituted abrogation, yet he still considered some factors a valid abrogation when they really are not, such as contingency. The other five claims Makki approved, according to Al-Jabri, were the "Big Three", the Qibla change-over claim (2:115/2:144
) and the blanket claim about the Zakah verse, 9:60.