(٢٢) And if they incline to pea.

This verse, according to Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Zayd b. Aslam, Ata, lkrima, al-I:Iasan
[al-Ba ri], ١٣٠
The fact is that the verse under question here is precise, and hence, was not abro‌
gated. The following are some reasons that establish that.
First, the sword verse was intended specifically for themushrikun (nonbelievers), and not others, as we already mentioned. It was for this reason that the Prophet made peace with the Christians of NaIran in the tenth year of the Hijra, ١٣١ in spite of the fact that the "Surat al-Baraa" was revealed in the previous year (٩ A.H./٦٣٠ c.E.). Thus, the sword verse should be regarded as a particularizer of the general terms in the abovementioned verse, and not its abrogator.
Second, the obligation to fight the nonbelievers, and not to conciliate [differences]
with them, is limited to the situation in which the Muslims have the power and the ability to fight. But when they do not have the power to enable them to gain the upper hand over their enemy, then there is no objection to conciliation, as the Prophet did with the Quraysh at the time ofl:Iudaybiyya [outside Mekka in the year ٦/٦٢٨]. This limitation is indicated in Gods saying, "So do not falter and cry out for peace when you [will be] the uppermost, and God is with you, and He will not grudge [there‌ ward of] your actions" (Q. ٤٧:٣٥).

(٢٣) ٠, Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast, they shall over‌ come a thousand ofthose who disbelieve, because they [the disbelievers] are a folk with‌ out intelligence. (Q. ٨:٦٥)

Now has God lightened your burden, for He knows there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a steadfast hundred, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a thousand [steadfast], they shall overcome two thousand by permission of God. God is with the steadfast. (Q. ٨:٦٦)
It has been mentioned that the injunction in verse ٦٥ was abrogated by verse ٦٦, because in the beginning it was obligatory that the Muslims fight the disbelievers even if they were ten times more than them. Afterward, God lightened the burden for the Muslims and made the battle obligatory on the condition that the number of the disbelievers should not be more than twice the number of Muslims.
The fact is that there was no abrogation in the ordinance. The assertion of abroga‌ tion depends upon proving that the two verses were revealed separately. Moreover, it should be established that the subsequent verse was revealed after the earlier verse had gone into effect; otherwise, the abrogation would have occurred before the time when the earlier verse was needed and would have in effect turned the first verse into a mistake. No one who maintains that the verse in question was abrogated can prove either of the above points except by means of single-narration traditions, which, as we have frequently pointed out, cannot, according to the consensus among Mus‌ lim scholars, establish abrogation.١٣٢ In addition, the narrative of the two verses is the best evidence that they were revealed at the same time.
Consequently, the ordinance that twenty persons should fight two hundred is a rec‌
ommended ruling. As such, how can one claim that it was abrogated? Moreover, the