An-Nahhaas claimed that 22:28 was abrogated, but failed to mention what abrogated it or the reason he believes it was!
Thanks to Dr. Mustafa Zayd, I now have An-Nahhaas's argument. Dr. Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 244-247 (items 1108-1111), explains that An-Nahhaas understood the verse to be talking about the `Aqeeqa, a feast called seven days after a child is born. In that feast, one or two sheep are slaughtered and the guests are invited to eat them. An-Nahhaas first says that Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Husayn has opined that Udhiya (sacrifice on the 10th of Zhul-Hijja) abrogates all slaughters. Nobody else agrees with him, since `Aqeeqa, for example, is an established Sunna and the consensus is that it was not abrogated. Thus opined Maalik, Ash-Shaafi`i and Ibn Hanbal.
So, An-Nahhaas was not actually for this claim, but against it.
Dr. Zayd says that An-Nahhaas interpreted Muhammad ibn Ali's ruling was about all other pre-Islam slaughters, but `Aqeeqa is Islamic. Besides, that means that ibn Ali's ruling implies that he believed 22;28 is
abrogating, not abrogated, since the context is clearly the pilgrimage; the Chapter is called The Pilgrimage!
Scholars differed on whether Udhiya and `Aqeeqa are manadtory. Abu-Haneefa mandates the Udhiya, while Al-Hasan Al-Basri mandates the `Aqeeqa. The majority, however, see both as strong recommendations and emphasized Sunnas.
Finally, Dr. Zayd discusses that what may have been thought abrogated was the provision to
eat from the sacrificed meat, since some people thought they shouldn't. The Prophet (PBUH) assured them that they can and encouraged them to. The one time he forbade them was explained the following year by the fact that there were many poor people at that time who deserved that meat more.