Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ في القرآن والسنة, pages 159-163, makes the argument that Chapter 9, especially verses 1-11 mandate an all-out fight on all non-Muslims and that it abrogates verses that exempt covenanted people, such as
And verses that exempt peaceful people, such as
Those two claims were made by Ibn Abbaas. Ibn Salaam comments that Chapter 9 "abrogated the armistice and breached treaties!"
Does it? How come he glossed over the verses of exceptions, such as
And how come he glossed over verses that specify the contingency and reason for the fight, such as
Aren't those verses in Chapter 9 too? Aren't they in the same context of the fight verses? Why did God put those verses there? For cursory reading? Or for instruction? Those verses are mandated the same way the fight verses are mandated. And neither set of verses abrogate the other set. They all, together, make up the instruction about fighting the polytheists.
What Ibn Salaam succeeds in is demonstrating that a number of prominent scholars, such as Mak-hool Ash-Shaami, Ibn Shihaab, and possibly Al-Awzaa`i, believed in all-out war, but not that this is a correct interpretation. Ibn Salaam does show that this interpretation was not unanimous. He quotes Ibn `Umar, `Ataa', `Amr ibn Deenaar and Sufyaan Ath-Thawri ruling that fighting is not a mandate on people like the five pillars are. Ibn Salaam's own opinion is that fighting is a mandate on Muslims as a whole but can be achieved by a portion of them (فرض كفاية).
It is particularly ironic that a man named Ibn Salaam (son of peace) would actually believe in an unprovoked war against all non-Muslims.See also
an extensive discussion of this subject in the topic "Did 9:5 abrogate 124 verses?