Jamaal `Ataaya rejects this claim in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, pages 249-253, using an excellent argument. He first says that exegetes offered a bunch of interpretations of the phrase
خفافا وثقالا:
- With energy and without.
- Whether you have a few dependents or many.
- Whether you have a few weapons or a lot.
- With a ride or without (walking).
- Young or old.
- Thin or fat
- Healthy or sick.
Ar-Raazi said in his book مفاتيح الغيب, volume 8, page 16, that all those explanations apply, but only to those commanded by the leader to join the fight. That is evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) let women and some men stay behind, which proves that the call to fight is not a mandate on all as the pro-abrogation folk thought.
`Ataaya then presents his argument. He says that the cause for claiming abrogation is a misunderstanding of what the verse says:
- God did not say انفروا جميعا (Go out to battle all of you); He says انفروا خفافا وثقالا (Go out to battle whether you are light or heavy). `Ataaya says that the misunderstanding of this clause is why God revealed 9:122, to correct it! Correction of misunderstanding is not abrogation.
- The explanations of the phrase خفافا وثقالا that have been offered are all materialistic, when, in `Ataaya's view, the phrase is referring to the spiritual. He quotes for evidence a verse that appears shortly before 9:41,
That is the context of all those verses, the fact that fighting is disliked,
`Ataaya understands خفافا therefore to mean "with enthusiasm and desire to please God" and ثقالا to mean "without enthusiasm and preferring to cling to the luxuries of this world."
Finally, he says that, with this understanding, the verse has nothing to do with the excuse verses, such as 9:122, thus the two subjects are different and therefore there is no cause to claim abrogation.