As mentioned in this post
, Ibn Abbaas has said that the command in 24:58 has been neglected
by people. Perhaps that is what As-Suyooti meant when he said that it was abrogated. If so, that's not abrogation; that's people not following orders!
Adding to the list of the modes of abrogation: Abrogation by negligence! It seems that abrogation has become an all-encompassing way to legitimize disobeying verses in the Quran.
Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 158 in the footnotes, quotes Abu-Ubayd and Sa`eed ibn Jabeer saying that 24:58 was not abrogated but rather neglected. Abu-Abdillah Shu`la quoted Ash-Sha`bi, Jaabir and Ibn Zayd saying the same thing.
Shu`la also adds that what Ibn Abbaas said was that 24:58 was necessary when people did not have doors to their rooms, but when they did, asking permission to enter a room was no longer necessary, therefore the verse is abrogated. Shu`la then says, and I'm not sure if it's his words or he was still quoting Ibn Abbaas, that if people don't have doors again to their rooms, then the verse's mandate comes back.
Well, that is not abrogation. That's contingent ruling. Thus, either Ibn Abbaas or Shu`la used the word naskh to describe a contingent ruling. From what I learned about Ibn Abbaas over the years, it sounds to me that it was he who made that argument and that he was right. Naskh can mean abrogation but can also mean contingent ruling.