Abrogation is maintained here because of two erroneous principles.
[The first] one is that the elimination of a temporary injunction, when its time is
up, amounts to abrogation. This is an obvious error, for abrogation supervenes only in cases where the injunction is not explicitly stated as temporary or as everlasting. This is because when the injunction is temporary, even if its time limit ls mentioned in general terms, the evidence which clarifies its term and indicates its termination would customarily be one of the indicators that clarify the aim of the injunction. Accordingly, this [termination] does not constitute an abrogation in any sense. This is because abrogation is the elimination of a ruling that is established and explicitly [stated] as absolutely continuous and unrelated to a particular time. Fakhr al-Din al‌ Razi believes that abrogation is, at times, indicated when the time span of a tempo‌ rary ruling is intimated by a separate clue. However, such an opinion is evidently incorrect. As for the injunction which includes an explicit statement of permanence, then the absence of abrogation regarding it is self-evident.
The second [one is] that the people of the Book are those whom the Prophet (peace
be upon him and his progeny) was commanded to fight. This is groundless, because the Quranic verses that command warfare apply to jihad against the disbelievers (mushrikun) and invite them to believe in God, the Exalted, and the Hereafter. As for the People of the Book, it is not permissible for Muslims to fight them except when there are other reasons for that. In this connection, God, the Exalted, says: "Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo, God loves not aggressors" (Q. ٢:١٩٠); or if they cause sedition among the Muslims, as God says, "And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; for persecution (fitna) is worse than slaughter" (Q. ٢:١٩١); or if they refuse to pay the tribute (jizya), as stated in the previously cited verse (Q. ٩:٢٩). Hence, in the absence of any other reason, it is not permissible to fight them merely because of their disbelief (kufr), as the verse explicitly states.
To summarize, the command in the verse is to pardon and forgive the People of the Book, for their desire to tum the Muslims back to disbelief is only the natural outcome of their own disbelief and does not contradict the command to fight them when there are other reasons requiring that. But those who suspect abrogation in regard to this verse have taken the word "command," in Gods saying, "Until God shall give His command" (Q. ٢:١٠٩), in its imperative sense. ٤ This caused them to imagine that God had commanded forgiveness of the disbelievers (kuffar), until such time when He shall command the Muslims to fight them. Accordingly, they took this to imply abrogation.
It is important to point out that even if this explanation is hypothetically true, it still does not necessitate abrogation. However, such a presumption is incorrect. The reason is that the word "command" here refers to a primordial command and Gods preordained decree concerning His creation. This meaning is supported by the fact that the command is predicated on Gods causing it to pass, as well as on what God says after that, "Lo! God is able to do all things" (Q. ٢:١٠٩).
The meaning of the verse involves the command to pardon and to forgive the People of the Book for their wish to "make the Muslims disbelievers," until God does what He desires regarding bolstering and strengthening Islam among His creatures. Furthermore, He would cause many among the disbelievers to convert to Islam, de-