There is no such thing as abrogation in the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself makes this clear in 4:82 - "Will they not then meditate on the QurÂ’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Moreover, two of the three suwar I cited,
al-Baqara and
al-Anfal, were revealed in Madinah, after hostilities had already commenced between the Muslims and the persecuting Quraish.
Al-Baqara in particular contains most of the Qur'an's guidance pertaining to dealing with enemies. The only verse I cited that was revealed in Makkah was one of the last revealed in that city, after the Quraish had been actively persecuting the Muslims there for some time. If any of the verses I referred to are "superceded" as you suggest, please show me the verses that supposedly take precedence over them. In 1936, Muslim leader and scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote the following on the subject of abrogation:
That certain verses of the Qur'an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the Qur'an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (
al-Nahl) - a Makkah revelation - and runs thus: "And when We change a message for a message, - and Allah knows best what He reveals - they say: Thou art only a forger" (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur'anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Qur'an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses in the Qur'an but because he claimed that the Qur'an was a divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: "Only a mortal teaches him" (16:103). According to them the whole of the Qur'an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.
The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: "Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it" (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: "they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that" (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words "or cause to be forgotten" cannot refer to the Qur'an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should make the Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Prophet never forgot what was recited to him is plainly stated in the Qur'an: "We shall make the recite, so thou shalt not forget" (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written without delay, and make his companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Qur'an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words
except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Qur'an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.
The message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout its entirety. As I said, all of the verses I cited were revealed after the worst of the persecution faced by Muhammad and his followers had begun. Your abrogation argument was proved false quite some time ago.
Guess what? The more recent books are not about peace, love and honor. They are about butchery, lying, and war.
Guess what? That, like most of your half-baked remarks, is untrue.
The next-to-last surah to be revealed tells Muslims to respect their alliances with disbelievers. The surah immediately preceding that tells us that if someone kills an innocent person, "it is as though he had killed all men." It also explains that all people who believe and do good, not just Muslims, will be rewarded. So much for "butchery, lying, and war." You don't know anything about Islam or the Qur'an; you merely regurgitate the ridiculous bullshit fed to you by ignorant Islamophobes.
