Moreover, if they base their argument on what they related about the subject from Ibn Abbas and Qatada-namely, that the verse under consideration was abrogated by the sword verse-then the following must be said to them in refutation:
First, abrogation cannot be established by means of a single narration. Second, this report is not transmitted on the authority of the infallible Imams. In all likeli‌ hood, it is the personal opinion of Ibn Abbas and Qatada. Third, the report is contra‌ dicted by the one related by Ibrahim b. Sharik. He reported from AI:lmad-that is, Ibn AbdAllah b. Yunus-who reported from al-Layth b. Abi al-Azhar, on the au‌ thority of Jabir, who had heard the Prophet say, "Do not attack in the sacred month except when you are attacked or they fight. When this happens, be prepared until [one of the sacred months] has passed."٣٤ Also, this report is contradicted by what has been reported on the authority of the ahl al-bayt regarding the prohibition to wage war in the sacred months.
Mor over,
battle of the Prophet against the Hawazin at I:Iunayn, and against the Thaqif at al‌ Taif, in the months of Shawwal, Dhu al-Qada, and Dha al-l:lijja of the sacred months, then they are refuted by the following:
First, abrogation cannot be established through a single tradition. Second, the
Prophets action, if the narrative is sound, could have resulted from a number of fac‌ tors.It could have happened because circumstances necessitated it. Hence, how could it serve as abrogator of the verse?

(٩) Wed not idolatresses (mushrikilt) till they believe. (Q. ٢:٢٢١)

It is alleged that this verse was abrogated by Gods saying, "And so are the virtuous women, of those who received the Book before you, [lawful for you] when you give them their marriage portions" (Q. ٥:٥).
Ibn Abbas, Malik b. Anas, Sufyan b. SaId, Abd al-Rai:Jman b. Umar, and al‌ AwzaI held this opinion, whereas AbdAllah b. Umar maintained that the latter verse was abrogated by the former and that, hence, [a man] was prohibited from marrying a woman from the people of the Book.٣٥
The fact is that nothing was abrogated in either verse. This is because if by
"idolatresses," for whom marriage was prohibited by the first [verse], is meant the worshipers of idols and images, as the apparent sense of the verse suggests, then the prohibition to marry them does not contradict the permission to marry the women belonging to the people of the Book, who are referred to in the second verse. Conse‌ quently, neither verse abrogates the other. However, if the meaning of "idolatresses" is more general than the "women of the people of the Book," as those who believe in the abrogation assume, the second verse would restrict the first one; and the two verses, taken together, would mean that marrying a woman from the people of the Book is permitted, but marrying an idolatress is not. It is true that it is generally accepted that marriage to a woman from the people of the Book is not permissible except in the form of temporary marriage ( mut a). This is either because of the restriction applied to the verse about the general permission by the traditions purporting the prohibition of permanent marriage, or because of the view that the verse [regarding marriage to a scripture woman] indicates that a permanent marriage is unlawful. On the other