Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, says that if there is an explanation or interpretation that makes it possible to comply with two verses that seem contradictory, then there is no cause for an abrogation claim. I certainly agree, and this is precisely our validation rule
He says that abrogation is invalidation of God's rulings, a serious matter that should not be resorted to unless there is no way to reconcile the two verses. I submit that there is not one abrogation claim that could not be avoided, precisely because in every such claim there indeed is an explanation that blows it away.
The inconsistency of Al-Areedh's book regarding his statement above is that he went on to claim that 24:2 abrogated 4:15-16. Let's apply his logic: Is there any interpretation that can reconcile the two? Answer: There sure is. It was offered by Al-Asfahaani as we shown in the topic discussing this case
. It is a most compelling explanation, even supported by linguistics. So, why didn't Al-Areedh apply his own argument? His answer is, get this, "No other scholar said it!
That, to me, means that he believes that consensus can abrogate the Quran
. Yet, he shows in his book why it can't. Another inconsistency.
I hate writing these posts. I don't want to continue criticizing this reverend scholar. May God reward him for his analysis effort, Ijtihaad, and forgive me if I have done him wrong.Update:
I found out that Mujaahid ibn Jabr was the first to offer the interpretation of 4:15-16 which Al-Asfahaani used to reject the claim mentioned above. Thus, Al-Areedh's statement that no other scholar said it is incorrect.