Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 19, states that verse 2:106 is certain in its indication (قطعية الدلالة). But that is incorrect, because both words ننسخ and آية carry multiple meanings and have been interpreted in multiple ways by the scholars over the centuries.
This may be speculation on my part, but I noticed a pattern. Some scholars who are anti-abrogation (overtly or covertly) seem to try a "diplomatic" approach to the debate by conceding some points to the pro-abrogation crowd in the hope that the rest of their argument will be more readily acceptable that way.
In the case of Afaana, he is overtly anti-abrogation, so he is going overboard in saying that 2:106 is what pro-abrogation folks think, except that the abrogated verses are gone. Hassaballah says yes maybe there are abrogated verses in the Quran, but arguing that based on 16:101 and 2:106 is not the right approach. Qaradawi says there are "almost" no abrogation in the Quran. You get the pattern.
I think diplomacy should be exercised in style not in substance. What is true is true regardless of all else, and there is absolutely no way around that.