Early usage of naskh encompassed several different explanatory operations. Three of them are: identifying the end of a ruling’s operative period; shifting from an initially apparent sense to a contextually supported interpretation; and clarifying a qualification or condition that limits the application of an expression.
None necessarily entails complete withdrawal of a legal obligation. An ordinary-language illustration is a general instruction followed by a condition specifying who is able to comply. The second statement may explain the first rather than cancel it.
Recognizing these functions prevents an interpreter from treating every early use of the word as a later, narrow doctrine of abrogation.