This point has to be settled if we are to have a uniform message.
While I like to settle this point, it isn't necessary to have a uniform message, as it does not pertain to the abrogation doctrine, by which we mean abrogation of verses in the bound volume of the Quran.
An abrogated command is one that had to be followed at some point in time, and at a later point in time had no element that needed to be followed.
This is a good definition of an abrogated command, but it is missing a qualifier: complete. We only know if a command is complete if no further command pertaining to it is issued later, or if God (or His Messenger) say it's complete.
This is what I believe the Salaf meant by منسأ. They meant a component of a compound command that it delayed until it was the right time to issue it. This is what Az-Zarkashi
has clearly stated. His conclusion was that there were no verses in the Quran that were abrogated in any way, but rather verses whose full verdict has taken more than one command spread over time.
What we agree on is that there are no abrogated verses in the text of the Quran. This does not require that there would be no abrogation period.
While that is true, I became convinced, after reading Ataaya's book, that no abrogation of divine
books took place. What the Quran abrogated was not the Torah and the Gospel, but the Old Testament and the New Testament.
For instance, some foods that were prohibited before Jesus became allowed after he came. Let me now ask point blank. Do you agree that this is a case of abrogation?
Actually, no. Here is why. The command to forbid certain foods was a punishment from God to the Israelites, evidenced by the first four words of the verse,
Those foods became allowed to the Jews who accepted Jesus. That is the contingency of the new command, evidenced by the last three words of the verse,
Notice how he says "Confirming what is before me of the Torah"? The Gospel came to confirm the Torah and abrogate the Old Testament.