According to Abu Jafar al-Nal)l)as, most of the scholars are of the opinion that this passage has been abrogated, and that the disbelievers attacked in the Sacred House and in other spots. He attributes the opinion about the abrogation to Qatada also.٣٠
The fact is that the verse is precise, and is therefore not abrogated. Thus, if it is
maintained that the abrogator of the passage is what God, the Exalted, has said‌ "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. ٩:٥)-then such an opinion is obvi‌ ously invalid. The reason is that the earlier passage is specific, and a specific pas‌ sage is a clue for understanding the purport of a general ordinance, even if it were known to be an earlier revelation. Hence, this is even more true when the order of the revelations is unknown. Accordingly, fighting the disbelievers is restricted to places other than the Sacred House of Worship, except that if they were to start hos‌ tilities in it themselves, then it would be permissible to fight them there.
On the other hand, if those who maintain abrogation base their view on the tradi‌ tion that says that the Prophet ordered the slaying of Ibn Khatal, even though the man had taken refuge in the Kaba, this, too is wrong-first, because it is a single narration, and therefore does not qualify as an abrogator; and second, because there is no evidence of abrogation. This is because Muslim and al-Bukhari, in their Sa/:tf/:ls, relate that the Prophet said, "It [this action] was never made lawful for anyone be‌ fore. And it was made lawful for me only for that particular moment."٣١ The explicit meaning of this tradition is that such an action is the exclusive privilege of the Prophet. Therefore, there is no justification for taking it as indication of abrogation, except as a concession to the legal opinion of some jurists, but this is an argument against them.
[Another verse connected with fighting is the following one.]

(٨) They question you [٠ MuJ:!ammadfwith regard to warfare in the sacred monthsY Say, "Warfare therein is a great [transgression]." (Q. ٢:٢١٧)

According to AbU Jafar al-Nal)l)as, the scholars are agreedthat this verse is abro‌ gated, and that fighting the disbelievers in the sacred month is permissible. Only Ata differed, maintaining that the verse was decisive and that, as such, fighting was not permissible in the sacred months. ٣٣
However, there is complete agreement among the Imami Shiites, both in their writings and their legal decisions, that the prohibition remains in effect. This opin‌ ion is stated by al-TUsi in his al-Tibyan and by Mul)ammad I:Iasan al-Najafi in his Jawahir al-Kalam. This is a sound opinion, because if the verse that is cited as abro‌ gating the ordinance about the [sacred months] is the one in Which God says, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. ٩:٥), as mentioned by al-Nal)l)as, then it is indeed far-fetched. This is because the [latter] verse makes the injunction about kill‌ ing the disbelievers conditional upon the passing of the sacred months. Indeed, God, the Exalted, says, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q. ٩:٥). Thus, how can the verse abrogate the injunction regarding the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months?
If, on the other hand, they base their argument on the unrestricted command in the sword verse-"And wage war on all the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you" (Q. ٩:٣٦)-then it is obvious that a general ordinance cannot serve as the abrogator of a specific one, even if the former happens to follow the latter chronologically.