Myanmar Is Starving Rohingya Muslims Out of Their Villages: Reports

[Coyote]

Well, again - as I said, you and I disagree on that.

Non-Muslims are certainly considered innocents if they aren't at war, and Islam has a lot of rules concerning war and how people should be treated.

Stop lying.

Not by Islam. Infidels cannot be innocents.
Can Infidels be Innocents?

Daniel Pipes, Pamela Gellar - using those as sources is like using SPLC as a source, and I recall you specifically panned SPLC and requested it not be used to prove something in another thread.

Interestingly - Quora, while not exactly a "source" provides an interesting discussion on that question: https://www.quora.com/Are-infidels-considered-innocent-by-Muslims

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

 

[Lastamender]

Not by Islam. Infidels cannot be innocents.
Can Infidels be Innocents?

Daniel Pipes, Pamela Gellar - using those as sources is like using SPLC as a source, and I recall you specifically panned SPLC and requested it not be used to prove something in another thread.

Interestingly - Quora, while not exactly a "source" provides an interesting discussion on that question: https://www.quora.com/Are-infidels-considered-innocent-by-Muslims

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

 

[Coyote]

Daniel Pipes, Pamela Gellar - using those as sources is like using SPLC as a source, and I recall you specifically panned SPLC and requested it not be used to prove something in another thread.

Interestingly - Quora, while not exactly a "source" provides an interesting discussion on that question: https://www.quora.com/Are-infidels-considered-innocent-by-Muslims

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

 

[Lastamender]

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

 

[Lastamender]

The widespread persecution of Christians that exists in Egypt can also be found in almost every Muslim majority society—in Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, and elsewhere. The pervasive nature of the persecution in Islamic countries suggests that it does not stem from any distortion of Islam, but rather from the core texts and teachings of mainstream Islam itself.

Which raises a question. Could it be that all these Muslims in diverse parts of the world have misinterpreted Islam? Or is it more likely that the real misunderstanders are Catholic prelates who, though well-intentioned, have no lived experience of Islam?

Interesting quote. A common sense statement.
The problem is not “Islamophobia” but ignorance of Islam

 

[irosie91]

Do you condemn Islam? The Koran fits the definition of hate speech. Surely you can condemn hate speech, sand in turn condemn the religion that teaches that hate.

No. I dont condemn Islam. Just like I dont condemn Buddhism for the acts of Myanmar. I condemn those who commit thes deeds.

Why? Islam says a lot of terrible things, has done terrible things and considers those horrific crimes against humanity pious. If you can not condemn Islam your condemnation of anything else is meaningless.

Thanks for playing but hypocrites just don't count.

I agree. Hypocrites are problematic. Particularly those who oppose some genocides and support others.

When it comes down to it, it is picking a side, because the methods cancel each other out. I will go out on a limb and blame Islam. I condemn Islam for what it teaches, how about you?

I will never pick the side of genocide. Ever. Genocide kills innocent people.

Do I condemn Islam for what it teaches?

Depends on what part of it you are talking about - it isn't a yes or no question. There is a lot in Islam on forgiveness, charity, and peace as well as onn how people should treat each other in good ways, and the Golden Rule. How can I condemn those things? You and I clearly disagree on that, so I don't see much point in discussing it. On the other hand, there are certainly violent passages, and Islam's doctrine was essentially formulated in an ancient society that does not recognize the rights and freedoms we do today especially in regards to women. They belong to history. I would condemn individuals who take those parts literally and act on them.

Is that a suitable answer to your question?

not only not suitable-----characteristically idiotic------the old "well----the Koran is "ANCIENT"----
what can you expect from "ANCIENT" ? bullshit!!!! the rapist pig was born in MODERN
TIME-------with the advantage of developed HUMAN civilization all around him------Philosophy and
Science HIGHLY advanced ----from the orient all the way to eastern edge of the holy roman empire.
The writings of Aristotle and Socrates were at his primitive fingertips-----the technology of
Egypt and Greece and Rome----ALL THERE ------and the best they could do was the filthy bloody Koran and
the vile stench of shariah law?

 

[irosie91]

Why? Islam says a lot of terrible things, has done terrible things and considers those horrific crimes against humanity pious. If you can not condemn Islam your condemnation of anything else is meaningless.

Thanks for playing but hypocrites just don't count.

I agree. Hypocrites are problematic. Particularly those who oppose some genocides and support others.

When it comes down to it, it is picking a side, because the methods cancel each other out. I will go out on a limb and blame Islam. I condemn Islam for what it teaches, how about you?

I will never pick the side of genocide. Ever. Genocide kills innocent people.

Do I condemn Islam for what it teaches?

Depends on what part of it you are talking about - it isn't a yes or no question. There is a lot in Islam on forgiveness, charity, and peace as well as onn how people should treat each other in good ways, and the Golden Rule. How can I condemn those things? You and I clearly disagree on that, so I don't see much point in discussing it. On the other hand, there are certainly violent passages, and Islam's doctrine was essentially formulated in an ancient society that does not recognize the rights and freedoms we do today especially in regards to women. They belong to history. I would condemn individuals who take those parts literally and act on them.

Is that a suitable answer to your question?

Not really, because those things like charity and forgiveness are for Muslims only. They are supremacists and their literature says they are to let people know that. That is why the Islamic Golden rule is a joke. Why you cannot admit that non-Muslims are never called "innocents" and that is why Muslims say they don't kill innocents. Start telling the whole truth.

Well, again - as I said, you and I disagree on that.

Non-Muslims are certainly considered innocents if they aren't at war, and Islam has a lot of rules concerning war and how people should be treated.

Stop lying.

good idea Coyote-----stop lying and start apologizing to the sex slaves of Sudan, Iraq, Nigeria and even
my dead mother-in-law------ALL VICTIMS OF THE BEAUTY OF KORANIC LAW------and the little girls now
being raped in the streets of Europe. Non-muslims are not considered "innocents" under the vile stench
of islam------never were

 

[irosie91]

Not by Islam. Infidels cannot be innocents.
Can Infidels be Innocents?

Daniel Pipes, Pamela Gellar - using those as sources is like using SPLC as a source, and I recall you specifically panned SPLC and requested it not be used to prove something in another thread.

Interestingly - Quora, while not exactly a "source" provides an interesting discussion on that question: https://www.quora.com/Are-infidels-considered-innocent-by-Muslims

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

My sources are MUSLIMS from various MUSLIM countries-----educated in muslim schools----and survivors
of lands ruled by muslims. Feel free to ask questions

 

[irosie91]

You will have to tell me what lies those two have told. Should be easy to find, right? They back their information with Islams own words. You are scared of the proof. And the truth.

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

I agree with Coyote----which is why I never QUOTE the Koran-----islam is not "THE KORAN"----islam is
the THE LAW ELABORATED BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS based on their EXPERT INTERPRETATION
OF THE KORAN. Hinduism is not the Bhagavad Gita-------it is the philosophies elaborated by hindu
scholars----to some extent based on the Sanskrit scriptural writings.

 

[Coyote]

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

 

[Coyote]

You scared of SPLC?

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Do you actually know what abrogation is?

 

[irosie91]

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

your statement does not mean much, Coyote------Biblical LAW is determined
by scholars----. Jewish law is determined by Jewish scholars and Canon
law by Catholic scholars----and so on. ------they all derived it from the scriptural
writings. Islamic scholars have DERIVED SHARIAH from the Koran for more than
the past 1000 years. ISLAMIC LAW----is clear on many issues----some of which are
being DEMONSTRATED under your very nose. In Pakistan-----a special NON MUSLIM
court had to be established to try the murderers of Daniel Pearl-----because according to
ISLAMIC LAW------the murderers would be acquitted since Daniel was captured and ---
REFUSED TO CONVERT TO ISLAM. -------the murderers videotaped the murder as
PROOF OF THEIR INNOCENCE-----(how convenient are those video cameras) ---
they were convicted anyway-------and sentenced to death------so far they have not been
executed ---------because the execution would be a VIOLATION OF ISLAMIC LAW------
they could be fined-----the fine being 1/4 of the monetary value of a muslim man------
I understand why you so LIKE Islamic law and always DEFEND IT (PS----in real Islamic law---
they would not be fined unless some MUSLIM valued the life of that jew for some reason----
like he was a good silversmith under muslim control). (Christians and Hindus----AND SIKHS,
in Pakistan face the same IN CONTEXT bullshit that you advocate)
kind of justice that you advocate-------IN CONTEXT)

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fictional Ishmaelism Does Not Apply Here Or There "

* Contradictions And Paradox *

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

The legalism of the torah does not apply outside of israel ; and , no adherent of torahnism - a genetic religion - believes it does ; rather , the 613 mitzvot are self incumbent upon themselves therein .

My tact on christianity is based upon antinomianism , where by no name will a law be invoked , not by mu sa , not by mu ham mad , not by pretenses from any ineffable deity .

It is a logical antithesis for legalism , where by a valuation of merit in " hue mammon " social systems is gauged from a context where all written law is removed .

Thus , pseudo-christians implement public policy so that its faux adherents do not have to abide by edicts which incriminate , rather than condone , their hypocrisy .

If dominionists wish to implement torahnism as public policy then they can move to israel .

And given that isa was crucified for rejecting precepts of legalism , for blasphemy , for heresy , then it is absurd that i slam would revere such prophetics as it equally seeks to crucify those assertions , based upon an expectation that legalism of the qurayn is universal .

The fictional ishmaelism clan is always going on about context , knowing full well it is practicing taqiyya , kitman , tawriya and muruna .

The splc flat out refused to answer a direct question as to whether a doctrine stating that ' the polytheists are unclean ' should be considered hate speech ,

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Bereft Lexicons "

* Ghoul Den Rule *

Only if you believe Jihad Watch and other hate sites.
Golden Rule in Islam | islam.ru

A golden rule of " due unto others as you would have due unto you " becomes a disingenuous idiom when one is satisfied that illegitimate aggression against ones self , and therefore unto others , is justified as due process .

fictional ishmaelism lauds democracy for its tyranny by majority while it derides respect for individual liberty and non aggression principles .

* Sectarian Separatist Supremacist Intolerant *

3:28 Let not believers take disbelievers as allies [i.e., supporters or protectors] rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing [i.e., no association] with God, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And God warns you of Himself, and to God is the [final] destination.

4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of tāghūt.172 So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.

5:51 O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, God guides not the wrongdoing people.

9:23 O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you - then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

And on and on and on goes the luciferian and sin mythology .

 

[irosie91]

both of you guys are delving into gobbly-gook ------and throwing gross errors into your discourse---
(I will not make an issue of the spelling errors)

 

[Lastamender]

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

I have told you Spencer knows more about Islam than most Iman's( and has proven it). And what is in that statement that stops the terror that proves he is wrong?

 

[Coyote]

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

I have told you Spencer knows more about Islam than most Iman's( and has proven it). And what is in that statement that stops the terror that proves he is wrong?

What os wrong is he never actually refuted any of Abdallah's points.

Spencer is like Stormfront. Who needs that crap?

 

[Lastamender]

Is that your source for proving Pipes Or Geller a liar? Post what you have that proves they are liars. If you call them haters I do not care because they inform you about hate. That hate is Islam.

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Do you actually know what abrogation is?

Yes I do. Or at least I know what Muhammad himself said about it, do you? And keep in mind Muhammad's opinion on abrogation is the only correct one to Muslims. That means what apologists that disagree with Muhammad are simply wrong. He is the ultimate and final word in Islam.

 

[irosie91]

No. I'm going to adhere to what you had said about SPLC...please don't use Pipes and Geller as a source (or, at any rate if you do I won't take it any more seriously then you do the SPLC).

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

I have told you Spencer knows more about Islam than most Iman's( and has proven it). And what is in that statement that stops the terror that proves he is wrong?

Long ago I learned-----that if one wishes to know how street drugs are used and
their effects ---and even how to administer them------ASK A JUNKIE. Over the
years I learned if you want to know what life is in jail------ask an inmate--not the prison guard. In fact if you want to know ALL THERE IS TO KNOW about the legal proceedings in the prosecution and appeal process of a crime---ALSO ASK
an inmate. As to islam-----if you really want to know islam-----ask a DHIMMI.
Robert Spencer and Elia Kazan---both carry DHIMMI family legacies (Elia Kazan did "AMERIKA AMERIKA" which subtley does deal with BEING A
TURKISH/GREEK DHIMMI. Feel free to ask questions

 

[Lastamender]

I see, when a verse from the Koran is cited it is not a fact? I told you anyone who backs up their claims with the verses of Islam is telling the truth or you are denying what the Koran says? Understand that?

You can still show me a lie they were caught in.

Verses alone, out of context don't mean a lot. That's why there are the Hadiths and scholars and whatever. Understand that?

And I've backed up my claims with verses before....you just discount them.

The verses you used were abrogated and no longer valid. And your context.

Abdalla's key point is that seemingly violent texts from Islam's canon have to be read "in context." He explains that to put the Koran "in context," one must at least consider the following five factors:

• the context in which verses were "revealed" to Muhammad;
• the principle of "abrogation";
• other passages which address the same subject;
• the life of Muhammad, and
• the way the verse has been applied [by Muslim scholars].

Taking context into account, however, can actually make a "peaceful" verse quite nasty, and a violent verse even worse. There is nothing about "context" that makes it a magic wand to render peaceful and harmless every text over which it is waved. Context is neither a silver bullet against violent texts, nor is it a disinfectant for theological unpleasantness.

This article debunks the context bullshit, even in context it is a hateful religion/ideology. Next.

Violence and Context in Islamic Texts

Jihad Watch.


Abdullah is right. There is nothing in that statement that disproves what he said. It is just opinion.

Context matters. Do you ignore context when reading the Bible? No.
You do not.

I have told you Spencer knows more about Islam than most Iman's( and has proven it). And what is in that statement that stops the terror that proves he is wrong?

What os wrong is he never actually refuted any of Abdallah's points.

Spencer is like Stormfront. Who needs that crap?

No he is not. You find one hateful quote from Spencer or one lie about Islam, please. Should I wait.

If you want some hate from Islam I can quote it, return the favor with some of Spencer's. Should I wait, you never found anything on Geller.