Dr. Mustafa Zayd reports in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 228-229 (items 1065-1068), that Hibatullah ibn Salaama, Ibn Hilaal and Al-Karmi have claimed that
was abrogated by the next two verses,
He guesses that they may have thought that 8:38 teaches passive approval from Muslims of the disbelievers, while the following two verses order a fight, therefore must have abrogated it.
Dr. Zayd points out the folly of this understanding as follows:
- Mujaahid, Ibn Is-haaq and As-Suddi all interpreted الأولين (the former peoples) as Quraysh on the day of Badr. That is, God is warning the disbelievers that they will have a dire end like those did.
- Ceasing does not mean ceasing the fight alone, it means ceasing disbelief too, opined Dr. Zayd. He says that the forgiveness God refers to in 8:38 is not targeted at their killing of Muslims in the past, but is targeted at their prior disbelief too, because "Islam buries deep what was before it", meaning wipes it out completely, as the Prophet said, peace be upon him.
- Ceasing was also mentioned in the verse claimed abrogating! Thus, 8:39-40 are emphasis and confirmation of the same teaching of 8:38, namely:
If disbelievers cease fighting and join Muslims in faith, their past sins of killing and blasphemy will be forgiven, but if they don't then they are subject to the same punishment suffered by similar peoples in the past.
I'd add that 8:39 is contingent on persecution in faith, i.e., the ordered fight is to end such persecution such that every one can freely choose Islam as his faith without fear for his life or limb. Thus, 8:38 encourages the polytheists to stop their persecution of Muslims and 8:39 orders Muslims to fight them if they don't. No conflict.
Dr. Zayd adds that this abrogation claim does not even base itself on any narration, which is usually what prompts scholars to discuss abrogation in the first place.