Derail from "Slaughter in Paris."

[shunyadragon]

Then you should have no trouble citing verses where Christians are told to go out and harm those who disagree with them.

The list and others I will cite include both, in particular Martin Luther's essay on Jews. Your neglecting some citations to take exceptions to others. To exclude Jews from normal interaction with society is distinctly part of the mix.

The bloody pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and persecution by Christians of Jews are clearly part of the history, which you are conveniently neglecting.

[rogue06]

The list and others I will cite include both, in particular Martin Luther's essay on Jews. Your neglecting some citations to take exceptions to others. To exclude Jews from normal interaction with society is distinctly part of the mix.

The bloody pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and persecution by Christians of Jews are clearly part of the history, which you are conveniently neglecting.

Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews? And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

[shunyadragon]

Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews?

Yes!!!

And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

Gave them, describing Jews as Evil, Christ killers and enemies of the gospel. These are cited by those that persecute Jews.

[rogue06]

Yes!!!



Gave them, describing Jews as Evil, Christ killers and enemies of the gospel. These are cited by those that persecute Jews.

And yet not a single one states or implies that Christians ought to go out and persecute them, correct? All you have cited are verses that some Christians would cite hundreds of years later in order to try to rationalize their behavior. Are you truly so dense as to not be able to see the difference?

So let's try again, please cite a verse where Christians are instructed to persecute anyone.

[Tassman]

Do you think that Luther was saying that the Bible teaches that Christians should persecute the Jews? And which of your citations from the Bible tell anyone to persecute the Jews or anyone else?

Of course he does: "...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...r_on_Jews.html

[rogue06]

Of course he does: "...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!"

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...r_on_Jews.html

Which Biblical verse is he referencing?

[Tassman]

Which Biblical verse is he referencing?

Ah,so you're suggesting that Martin Luther, a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation, got it wrong...that he misunderstood the intent of the bible with regard to the Jews?

[Juvenal]

Abrogation for this verse is very popular, although you can find a few scholars who say otherwise.

Uh huh. Right. And every single Muslim and Imam I've ever spoken to thinks otherwise. And I've spoke to quite a few, having spent years amongst Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. I made no secret of the fact I was not a Muslim, and they made no secret of the fact they'd like me to change my stance on that. Please note I'm not dead.

But get this. They'd always cite that ayah. "No compulsion." It's central to their faith, cutting across all the weird variants you find as you move from country to country. Muslims that know diddly-squat of the Qur'an know this verse.

And let's be honest here. Finding an exception might make your chest pump up a bit, but when all is said and done, 99.9999 percent correct is still correct, and pushing the .0001 position makes you look like you're lying for Jesus, too.

And then there's this ...

Source: Answering Islam

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this ayat.

© Copyright Original Source

A few scholars say otherwise? Where do you get this stuff? Oh, geez ...

No. Just no. You don't learn about Christianity from Muslims, and you don't learn about Islam from Christians. That's absurd. They've been at each others throats for over a thousand years.

It's like trying to get a meaningful character reference from a guy's ex-wife. Only squared, and cubed, and extended across 50 generations. Why bother? Maybe you can convince yourself that's justified, but everyone looking on sees that's only because you're dating his ex-wife.

If you want to accuse someone of lying, it's those who practice Islam and taqqiya/abrogation who you should have your sights on, not rogue06.

And now this. Seriously, dude. Who does this? Would you go into court claiming you're not guilty of murder because someone else committed some other murder? Be my guest, and let me know how that works out for you.

Not that taqiyyaDefine taqiyya

In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

Taqiyya has never been a Sunni tradition, which is why they feel so free to hurl the insult at Shi'a. And, even so, the Shi'a deny the tradition is still relevant, insisting instead that it was meant for a particular time, so in neither case can you claim they feel free to practice it.

Or, maybe you should do some research before you jump down someone's throat for "lying" when you yourself put in blatant falsehood* in your own post is rather contemptible IMO.

Let me suggest you're not the poster child for careful research on this one. So spare me your meaningless contempt, at least until after you've cleaned up enough to get your facts straight.

And maybe you should avoid doubling down on the lying for Jesus while you're at it. Muslims don't believe the ayah has been abrogated. And ever if you were right in thinking they should, it makes no difference that you think they should if they don't. You can't claim they're motivated by something they should believe if they don't believe it.

For all that, if you'd like some cover for that faceplant, it seems the rougelly one has helpfully providing it for you ...

Surah 256, like the other passages that called for peace and tolerance, were later abrogated (superseded or repealed) by surah 9:5 (Ayat al-Sayf or the Verse of the Sword).

Good luck convincing Muslims of that. Just as a helping hand, though, if you're going to try, you might want to learn the difference between a sur'at and an ay'at. There is no "Surah 256." That may be just a small typo, but it's a huge mistake. It's glaring. Not so bad as leaving the "not" out of the adultery commandment in the Wicked Bible, but snigger-worthy still.

Now the fruit of the cherry-picking in your sequel is a hodgepodge of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods, and all kinds of laughable ignorance that needs unpacking before we strike the coup de grace

<snipping copyright violations>

1. AFAICT, without exception, all Islamic religious scholars state that abrogation not only included the abolishing, dropping or replacing of a verse by another (often contradictory) verse, but it also includes abolishing a provision of a verse without eliminating its wording or text from the Qur'an. So the verses that were later repealed and replaced remain in the Qur'an but are no longer in effect

2. Actually the Ghassanids with Al-Harith ibn Jabalah being their king.

3. Popularly known for his attacks on Mickey Mouse, calling women who drive prostitutes and blaming the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on immorality.

4. He is still so widely esteemed and revered that Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria) demolished his tomb earlier this year because they viewed it as sacrilegious.

Pro-tip: When citing sources for authoritative rulings in Islam, don't impugn their authority in your footnotes.

I'm not willing to suspend disbelief far enough to grant you went hunting through the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic scholarship and just happened to notice only those scholars and traditions, sahih and otherwise, that supported your thesis, miraculously missing traditions and scholars that said otherwise.

This is somebody else's research, and posting it under your own name, in academic circles, is called "plagiarism" ... though the less politically correct (see what I did there) and arguably more accurate term is "stealing." Then again, you're not an Islamic scholar, or an academic, just another Islamaphobic blowhard on the internet, ironically engaged in a purely Christian form of taqiyya, the kind that quickly comes around to bite you in the butt.

Let me say it again. Muslims don't believe this. They don't believe 2:256 has been abrogated.

And that's a mighty damn good thing.

What are you thinking, you schlub! You want to encourage a religious war between half the humans on the planet by convincing them otherwise?

Dayum.

Freaking think before you post, Rogue.

[Juvenal]

To be clear, I am in no sense a Muslim apologist. Islam is still centuries behind Christianity in its evolution toward a religion that's safe to be let out in public. Radicalized Christianity is far more rare today. Moreover, the Christian sacred texts went through a decades- and even centuries-longer vetting process, and it shows. And Christianity had better texts to work with in the first place.

But there are good arguments against Islam and its sacred texts, and Christianity and its texts too for that matter, and crap arguments. I'm more than happy to listen to the former, and just as happy to call out the latter.

And I pay close attention to which sources prove themselves unreliable.

[The Thinker]

You are somehow conflating the State and the Church. The Church is not the State. When I say Christian State I mean those states who have a Judeo-Christian slant.

It's the secular slant that you should be emphasizing. The more serious and "Judeo-Christian" one is the more they tend to be against Muslims and other non-Christians existing in their society. The Republican party here in the US - which is the party of Jesus - is even flirting with the idea of closing Mosques and putting Muslims in a database. And 30 governors have refused to take in Syrian refugees. 29 of those states have Republican governors.

[The Thinker]

I've never been convinced by atheist claims that the non-existence of religion gives rise to a better world. There's a lot of stupid things that could be corrected without eradicating religion.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said the exact opposite: making the world a better place makes it less religious.

[Cerebrum123]

Uh huh. Right. And every single Muslim and Imam I've ever spoken to thinks otherwise. And I've spoke to quite a few, having spent years amongst Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. I made no secret of the fact I was not a Muslim, and they made no secret of the fact they'd like me to change my stance on that. Please note I'm not dead.

And? Not all Muslim majority countries go the route Mohammed mainly used. Taqqiya and propaganda are more useful today anyway.

But get this. They'd always cite that ayah. "No compulsion." It's central to their faith, cutting across all the weird variants you find as you move from country to country. Muslims that know diddly-squat of the Qur'an know this verse.

Yeah, and they know about it due to propaganda, and lies. You know, the kind you have repeated here in this post. Maybe you could show where this verse was made a Pillar of Islam, but I'm pretty sure you can't.

And let's be honest here. Finding an exception might make your chest pump up a bit, but when all is said and done, 99.9999 percent correct is still correct, and pushing the .0001 position makes you look like you're lying for Jesus, too.

It's been the majority position throughout Islamic history.

And then there's this ...

Source: Answering Islam

Scholars disagree and hold various positions regarding the legal status and meaning of this ayat.

© Copyright Original Source

A few scholars say otherwise? Where do you get this stuff? Oh, geez ...

Is there a problem with them citing Muslim scholars? I would have thought that Muslim scholars would be pretty good sources on things like tafsir, and how things like abrogation apply.

No. Just no. You don't learn about Christianity from Muslims, and you don't learn about Islam from Christians. That's absurd. They've been at each others throats for over a thousand years.

You know what they say when someone assumes something, right? Apply that now.
I went to the Muslim sites first when I started my study on Islam, but they were unwilling to answer questions, and lied about many they did answer. How do I know this? By reading what they cited in context. You do know that it's good to read both sides of an issue, right? Well, that's what I did, and I found the Islamic side that I encountered to be dishonest, or uninformed.

It's like trying to get a meaningful character reference from a guy's ex-wife. Only squared, and cubed, and extended across 50 generations. Why bother? Maybe you can convince yourself that's justified, but everyone looking on sees that's only because you're dating his ex-wife.

Read the above.

And now this. Seriously, dude. Who does this? Would you go into court claiming you're not guilty of murder because someone else committed some other murder? Be my guest, and let me know how that works out for you.

By your analogy I was providing evidence that someone else was the murderer.

Not that taqiyyaDefine taqiyya

In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, especially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.

Taqiyya has never been a Sunni tradition, which is why they feel so free to hurl the insult at Shi'a. And, even so, the Shi'a deny the tradition is still relevant, insisting instead that it was meant for a particular time, so in neither case can you claim they feel free to practice it.

Wow, just wow. They will say that their version of taqiyah is different, but Sunni Muslims do subscribe to taqiyah. It is not a Shia only practice, and it mentioned in the Quran and Sahih Hadith.

[cite]Quran: Surah:16 Ayat:106]Pickthall: Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.[/cite]

Lying isn't just allowed to avoid death either.

Let me suggest you're not the poster child for careful research on this one. So spare me your meaningless contempt, at least until after you've cleaned up enough to get your facts straight.

Yeah, this coming from someone who has bought the propaganda hook line and sinker.

And maybe you should avoid doubling down on the lying for Jesus while you're at it. Muslims don't believe the ayah has been abrogated. And ever if you were right in thinking they should, it makes no difference that you think they should if they don't. You can't claim they're motivated by something they should believe if they don't believe it.

Yeah, this is going to be reported. This is a clear unfounded, and unsubstantiated accusation of lying. Second, there are Muslim scholars who say it's been abrogated, and that goes back a long way. Third, I never said all Muslims believe what Islam teaches. There you go assuming again.

If I knew that you knew what you were posting was a lie, then I would accuse you of lying, because there is demonstrably false information here. Remember, disagreement doesn't count as lying, sincerely saying something that happens to be wrong isn't lying. Lying is when you say something you know is false.

For all that, if you'd like some cover for that faceplant, it seems the rougelly one has helpfully providing it for you ...

snipping response to rogue. I'll let him deal with that.

I'll let rogue06 finish this one. It's pretty clear you're not worth dealing with any more than I've done so already. I'm writing this because I need to blow off some steam*. It's become clear that you're not someone I can discuss things with seriously. I'll be unsubscribing now.

*Yeah, being called a liar without substantiation can make a person upset. I have a feeling that someone who's nickname is "jerk" knows that already though.

[The Thinker]

As the Judaeo-Christian nations have become secularized it has been negotiated under Judaeo-Christian guiding principles, IOW secularists etc have been able to point to Christian principles to win freedoms for themselves. As progressive secularism takes hold there will be no Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good for all to point to. It will be what the secularists want and nothing else will be tolerated.

That is not completely true. I agree that secularism came out of the Protestant Christian culture, and may not have came out so easily from a Muslim culture or different religion. I'll give you that. But saying there will be no "Christian principles of love, tolerance and seeking good" without Christianity is absurd. Christianity doesn't own the copyrights to love, tolerance and seeking good. They didn't invent it. As Christopher Hitchens said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." The more secular and liberal people are, the more they tend to be tolerant of others who are different.

[The Thinker]

More laziness I see. Do tell non-thinker, why is atheist China so violent, if your claim is true? I await your answer.

China is violent? Really? What facts are you backing that up with? I don't see any. I see an assertion, or an assumption, based on your opinion. One source I found says that "Murder rates in China are roughly one-fifth as high as in the United States." Another source says that violent gun crimes are 18 times more in the US than China, and violent crime in general is 4 times more in the US than China. So your whole question is based on a false assumption.

[rogue06]

Good luck convincing Muslims of that.

I don't have to. It's what they teach. Not to non-Muslims though. That's where they pretend that Islam means peace (false, it means submission), act bewildered about the concept of abrogation, and tell the gullible that taqqiya is an intra-Muslim insult^[1] (while it is true that the Sunni don't use the same term they have the exact same practice which is called idtirar. Both started out as a way for Muslims to avoid persecution by lying (contrast to early Christian martyrs) but later evolved into far more with the justification that Muhammad regularly employed deception against infidels).

I suggest you look into what the Muslims say to each other and what they teach as opposed to the message that they present to non-Muslims. Over the years the Israelis have done a splendid job translating radio and TV broadcasts that they picked up that were meant for internal consumption. The differences between them and the messages provided to outsiders are stark and unsettling.

And some did nothing to hide exactly what they felt but were quite open about it. One of the most notorious examples was Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I know he was a Shiite, but that hardly disqualifies him as a Muslim) who spoke on the subject of "Peace" and "Jihad," making it clear what the orthodox (Shiite) view is on the matter:
^[2]some understanding about how the Qur'an was ultimately compiled.

Oh and as for your...

if you're going to try, you might want to learn the difference between a sur'at and an ay'at.

...don't you think that is rich coming from the same person who made an utter fool of himself the last time he said this1.2. It should be noted that Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian born Jew who is a noted Middle Eastern historian has said he doubts the authenticity of the quote but AFAICT has never given any reason for why he has doubts. It may be due to the fact that one of those who has cited it, Amir Taheri, does have a history of providing quotes that cannot be substantiated but FWIU he is not the only source (though the most frequently cited one).