In refuting the case of 24:61/4:29
, Al-Khazraji, in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 1, pages 280-281, quotes Makki from his book الإيضاح strongly criticizing Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam for agreeing to that claim. He wrote (my translation and emphasis),
It is a wonder that Abu-`Ubayd (Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam) would point to that [weak narration from Ibn Abbaas] and allows it, while he is one of the rabbis of the community. It is obvious that this verse (4:29) cannot be abrogated, for abrogating allows what was forbidden and forbids what was allowed. Consuming people's property with falsehood is not allowed in the religion of God, nor by any text or analogy. No one we know of has interpreted الباطل as anything but "falsehood". The pro-abrogation folk must furnish proof to the other interpretation, but we never heard one from them.
Indeed. There is no authority given to any scholar to claim abrogation of any verse, when abrogation means allowing what was forbidden and forbidding what was allowed. Doing so, in modern parlance, is called "playing God."
But once again, we are faced with inconsistencies
, since both Makki and Al-Khazraji went on to make many abrogation claims themselves in the same books where they wrote that criticism of Ibn Salaam!