Pro-abrogation scholars, such as Abu-Bakr Al-Hamdaani in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, often, I have noticed, arrive at a conclusion for abrogation though an easy argument that makes it unnecessary is obvious, at least to me.
Two cases in point from his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, pages 15-16:
- He cites the hadeeth "Whoever oversleep or forgets a prayer should pray it when he remembers, for that is its time." He argues that it contradicts the hadeeth about forbidden times to pray and therefore, he concludes, the former takes precedence because it more closely matches the Quran.
Isn't that instead a simple case of exemption, not abrogation? A scholar may also legitimately conclude that the person ought to wait until the forbidden time is over before he makes up for the missed prayer. That would be another easy way to reconcile the two texts without jumping to the abrogation conclusion.
- He cites the hadeeth "No marriage shall be without an agent." He says it contradicts the other hadeeth that says "No agent is needed for a woman who was previously married."
Isn't this another simple case of exemption? The former hadeeth is general and the latter made an exception. Because Islam looks very seriously upon marriage, it did not want immature couples to elope. A mature, pious agent guarantees that the marriage is not an impulsive decision.