In refuting the claim that 3:28 was abrogated, Dr. Az-Zalmi, in his book التبيان لرفع غموض النسخ في القرآن, pages 186-187, launches a frustrated attack on Ibn Salaama (I translate):
Dr. Az-Zalmi wrote:
He (Ibn Salaama) said that part of 3:28 that says, "Believers shall not take for allies the unbelievers over the believers" that part is unabrogated. The abrogated part is "Unless you protect yourselves against them" that part was abrogated by the sword verse. Without explaining what contradiction there is between the two verses or explain what the meaning of "except if you protect yourselves against them" means. As if abrogation in the Quran is by opinion subject to what the analyst likes, if he wills he says it's abrogated and if he wills he says it's not. And if he wills he makes part of it abrogated and another not.
This is his method in all the verses he claimed in his book were abrogated. He rarely offered a reason. His book الناسخ والمنسوخ should be burned in the Muslim world because it polluted the status of the Grand Quran, which is the basis of Islamic law, even if he did so with good intention.
Emphasis mine. Wow! I'd add that Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi did likewise: called verses abrogated without saying why in most cases. Here is the verse in question for reference,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd, in his book النسخ في القرآن الكريم, volume 2, pages 60-62 (items 779-780) refutes this claim and quotes Ibn Al-Jawzi, from his book نواسخ القرآن, pages 58-59, saying,
وقد زعم إسماعيل السدي أن قوله: "لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين" منسوخة بقوله: "إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة". ومثل هذا ينبغي تنزيه الكتب عن ذكره، فضلا عن رده؛ فإنه قول من لا يفهم ما يقول. اهـ
Translation: Ismail As-Suddi claimed that His words "Believers shall not take disbelievers for allies instead of believers" is abrogated by His words "Except that you protect yourselves in precaution." Such talk, books should be spared mentioning it
, let alone refuting it, as it is the talk of someone who does not know what he's saying
Al-Jabri, in his book لا نسخ في القرآن...لماذا؟, pages 105-107, rejects this claim and says that the same notion of Ibn Salaama (nicknamed Abun-Nasr) was coined by the Khawaarij (Defectors), who regarded Tuqya (prudence), mentioned in 3:28, as a sign of weakness not befitting a believer. Tuqya is a very misunderstood concept! Some Shia justify any lying as Tuqya. Islamophobes quote it (they pronounce it Taqiyya, like the Shia do), as evidence that Muslims cannot be believed because they would tell you what you want to hear.
Tuqya is far from unconditional lying, it is simply a survival mechanism. If admitting that you're a Muslim will get you killed, then you have a license from God to hide your faith to protect yourself. This is the same thing that God mentions in,
To understand Islam, you have to examine the entirety of the Quran (and the authentic Hadeeth), not jump to a conclusion, based usually on interpretation, from a single verse or hadeeth. Islam forbids lying, and the Prophet (PBUH) made that clear when he said, "Stay away from lying. Lying leads to licentiousness and licentiousness leads to Hell." Narrated by Abdullah ibn Mas`ood and reported by Muslim as authentic.
Abu-Abdillah Shu`la, in his book صفوة الراسخ في علم المنسوخ والناسخ, page 120, rejects this claim and the reasoning behind it. He states clearly that the verse refers only to those who are forced to declare disbelief in order to save their lives. It has no other meaning. Shu`la cites 16:106
for support like I did above.Who said what:
As-Suddi (according to Ibn Al-Jawzi, quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Al-Khawaarij (according to Al-Jabri),
Ibn Al-Jawzi (quoted by Dr. Zayd),
Abdullah ibn Hamza Aş-Şa`di Al-Yamaani,
Dr. Mustafa Zayd,