I wanted to post my opinion that the hostile attitude towards those who disagreed with the abrogation doctrine, which can be seen in the abusive language openly used against them in the theological literature, may have inhibited those who had doubts about abrogation from pursuing their ideas or expressing their opinions. The reason this is relevant to the merits of the case here is that such bias of embracing those who agree and shunning those who disagree could result in a self-fulfilling 'consensus'.
I found a concrete example from one of the 20th century scholars who wrote an elaborate reference
about abrogation. On page 18 of Part 1 of this reference, while he describes the pressures on him as he investigates a centuries-old doctrine, he described one of the pressures he faced referring to Al-Azhar University which is a traditional theological institution, saying (translated):
... angering some people in Al-Azhar if I differ with the old, the way they understand the old, and the way they imagine what differs means.
Mind you, the reference he wrote was pro-abrogation, just more careful about it. Imagine how much more concerned he would have been if his conclusion was anti-abrogation. I thought this example was revealing of the kind of peer pressure for conformity that the scholars may face in the theological community.