This is a long post, but it carries a new point. I haven't re-read the thread as I write this, so it could be redundant with some of what has already been said, but here goes.
Actually, you touch on several points raised by the pro-abrogation scholars, namely:
I'll elaborate further below quotes from your post.
At this point, the two cases that I am not 100% comfortable with their anti-abrogation arguments are this case (58:13/58:12) and another "big-3" case (8:66/8:65). The latter I am more comfortable with, and that leaves the former case as the critical one, which was also the only case Burton conceded as a possible abrogation case.
Interestingly, the case at hand was never high on my list of meritorious claims. Firstly because of the imperative in 58:12 is a recommendation and not a mandate, something to which most scholars agree, evidenced by the excusing epilogue. That is what I said right away in the
OP.
Secondly, the word that starts 58:13 and caused scholars to think abrogation actually explains why 58:13 was revealed: To relieve the guilt that some pious Muslims felt which prevented them from seeking advice for legitimate issues they had. It is a point that
you observed, Pragmatic, and, to me, it is the compelling refuting argument. Naskh means, among many semantics, correction of a misconception.
Now let us take the case of a verse that applies only at the time of the Prophet, e.g., the command for people not to call for the Prophet shouting from outside. This verse is clearly not applicable (in the sense that the command therein does not obligate us to do anything),
Some scholars have argued that it is, by way of analogy (القياس). That is, Muslims should not be too familiar with their leader, especially if the leader does not like that. I get that sense from the event of people lingering around at the Prophet's hoping they may be invited to dinner! See,
The Prophet (PBUH) was simply too nice to tell them to stop this irritating behavior, so God told them!
As I mentioned in
this post, I don't quite see the argument of static/dynamic phase as a good one for or against abrogation.
Could a verse that is no longer applicable be "abrogated" by another verse?
I submit that there are no verses in the Quran that are no longer applicable. A verse of the Quran is applicable today to us in some way. This is an argument of the pro-abrogation scholars which I agree with. namely, that there is value enough in every verse of the Quran, even ones which are claimed abrogated, to keep it in the Quran. That is why these scholars claim abrogation of ruling but not of recitation.
I beg to differ with them on their conclusion of abrogation, but agree with them on their sentiment of verse applicability. Firstly, because, as we demonstrated in each case, there is no actual conflict to resolve and there are sensible arguments of refutation. Secondly, because God is wise enough and capable enough to effect His teachings without having to rescind any of His rulings.
There is no question that there are commands that were valid at one point, then became invalid at a later point during the life of the Prophet (what we coined the dynamic phase).
Commands from the Prophet (PBUH), yes, but not commands from God. The Prophet (PBUH) changed some of his commands, and God changed some of the Prophet's commands. But God did not change any of His commands. What appears as a change is not, when one scrutinizes it. In fact, many scholars have agreed that the debate between scholars has largely been about semantics.
What makes me think that this explanation may be valid is not the verses themselves, but the narration about Ali (RA). It is not possible (or at least highly labored) to dismiss the abrogation claim without raising authenticity issues about these narrations. This is probably 50% of the reason why this case is difficult to refute as an instance of abrogation.
This narration's authenticity is uncertain. The best rating it got was "sound but strange" from At-Tirmizhi. The man who narrated it from Ali, his name is Ali ibn `Alqama Al-Anbaari, was described by Al-Bukhaari as one whose narrating needs examining (في حديثه نظر). Al-Albaani rates it weak and lists it in his book ضعيف الترمذي ("the weak hadeeths in At-Tirmizhi").
The other version of Ali's narration, by way of Mujaahid, does not hint at abrogation at all, but rather is a bragging of sorts from Ali that he was the only one who complied with 58:12. Ibn Al-Jawzi reports it, as mentioned in
this post, but I could not locate the narration anywhere.
Furthermore, narrations by Ali of the same event conflict with each other on what charity he offered, and how much time had passed between the revelation of 58:12 and the revelation of 58:13. And isn't it rather odd that Ali himself (RA) did not say out right that 58:12 was abrogated? The ones who said that came later and must have interpreted the narrations attributed to him as abrogation.