In his introduction to his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن الكريم, Hibatullah ibn Salaama gives three verses that affirm the robustness of the Quran,
You'd think that he will pause and ponder after that and ask the logical question, "Can a book described as قيما
(firmly established, supervisory and the standard to measure by) and described as a book that nothing can cause crookedness in, can such a book contain verses or rulings that should no longer be followed?" And the logical question, "Can a book that emphasizes بينة
(clear evidence) be abrogated by uncertain evidence emanating from mortals who received no revelation?"
Alas, he doesn't. Instead, he says that the first thing to do when talking about the Quran is to know what was abrogated from it and by what! Why? Because the predecessors did. Then he quotes for support that weak narration (هلكت وأهلكت) attributed to Ali about the man telling stories in a Koofa mosque. He identified the man as Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Daab, a fellow of Abu-Moosa Al-Ash`ari.
In his narration, Ibn Salaama adds the reason Ali was angry at the story teller:
وهو يخلط الأمر بالنهي والإباحة بالحظر
Translation: As he was mixing commands with prohibitions and allowances with disallowances.
What does that imply? That without abrogation
, the Quran and/or the Hadeeth turn commands into prohibitions and allowances into disallowances? That they are in conflict and abrogation theories come to their rescue to resolve its conflicts?
It is beyond my comprehension how a scholar like Ibn Salaama would say or imply something like that then follow it, on page 14, with the words, "And my success is only by God, upon Him I rely and to Him I turn", quoting from 11:88.
He even criticizes the exegetes for not doing a good job in this regard, so he took it upon himself to complete what they left out!