The Game:

All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it) to discredit Islam.

This leaves the impression that the Quran is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  The "exceptions" are embedded in context with obvious constraints which bind it to a particular place and time (as is usually the case with violent Old Testament passages).

--------------

The Truth:

It isn't the verses of violence that are rare; it's the ones of peace and tolerance.  The latter were also narrated at an earlier time in Muhammad's life and superseded by what came later.  Neither is the "historical context" of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in many cases.

The last chapter of the Quran to be narrated by Muhammad is the most violent.  Worse, the historical context is that Muslims had total power at the time and were not being persecuted or attacked.  In fact, the sura orders believers to "be harsh" to both the unbelievers and Muslims who are peaceful or non-practicing (verse 9:73) and to fight Christians and Jews into a state of submission (verse 9:29) based on nothing other than their status as non-Muslims.

These are not the teachings of a religion of peace.  The apologists are forced to play games, such as inventing historical context, pulling "textual context" from an entirely different part of the Quran, or pretending that the true meaning can't be translated to non-Arabic speakers (or to non-Muslims, when native Arabic speakers agree with the translation, as they usually do).

A perfect book from a perfect god should be easy to understand, but in the Quran, constructs and topics are jumbled into a random mess with little consistency or coherent stream of thought.  This is underscored by the fact that few Qurans are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original "revelation."

Although the apologists often mitigate verses of violence with non-intuitive references to passages in other parts of the Quran, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework.  It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave topics as sensitive as killing and child rape open to human interpretation.

Back to historical context.  It's true that references to the external Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life determine when a Quranic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This allows the apologists to opportunistically dismiss the passages they don't like by insisting that they are really just a part of history and not intended to be present-day imperatives.

But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Quran that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play.  Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there.  They ignore context when it proves inconvenient.  An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword).

Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they hold the entire Quran to be the eternal and literal word of Allah... and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

I reckon sura 5:32 is taken out of context frequently by muslims, they leave out the first bit because this verse doesn't apply to muslims.
quran.com/5/32

The next verse 5/33 does apply to muslims.
quran.com/5/33

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

------------------

Indeed, just lovely, stone age stuff, I still can't believe we have these muslim idiots actually believing this stuff and doing it to innocent defenseless women and children. Muslim cowards.

I can't wait until they piss off Israel then we will see who the Ballers are. It won't be the cowardly muslims that's for sure.

Sir James wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

-------------- The Truth: The last chapter of the Quran to be narrated by Muhammad is the most violent.  Worse, the historical context is that Muslims had total power at the time and were not being persecuted or attacked.  In fact, the sura orders believers to "be harsh" to both the unbelievers and Muslims who are peaceful or non-practicing (verse 9:73) and to fight Christians and Jews into a state of submission (verse 9:29) based on nothing other than their status as non-Muslims.

A muslim will never admit to the contradictions in the Quran-
quran.com/4/82

How they sidestep the problem of contradictions is with abrogation, they use the newer better verse not the early verse whenever there is a contradiction, this results in the verse of the sword abrogating over 200 peaceful verses.

by claiming abrogation they are saying allah made mistakes

some of the last phrases chronologically in the koran

so these are the ones that count .....


Quote:

....................... From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

(The Repast) 5

and in the 2nd to last chapter invented by moh .........

called   'Repentance'



Quote:

...........5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ................. ...........14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers. 15 And He will remove the anger of their hearts. Allah relenteth toward whom He will. Allah is Knower, Wise. ............... 73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. ............. ...........123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)............ .

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm

Sir James wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment, ------------------ Indeed, just lovely, stone age stuff, I still can't believe we have these muslim idiots actually believing this stuff and doing it to innocent defenseless women and children. Muslim cowards. I can't wait until they piss off Israel then we will see who the Ballers are. It won't be the cowardly muslims that's for sure.

Interesting how ISLAM from its very inception, has expressed utter disdain and hatred for those identifiable persons who are today, uniquely identified with the state of Israel.

Not a scintilla of sincere respect or tolerance from ISLAM's hordes, for anything to do with Israel.

"On his death-bed Allah's Apostle....said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians....."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.056.660

.....BECAUSE, they ['the hated'] are not moslems [i.e. moslems, aka infidels].




ISLAM, and, the state of Israel.         [ISLAM = = represented by a body of people, citizens of the nations in the immediate vicinity, surrounding the state of Israel, since 1948.]

What a contrast that circumstance is to behold, in this age.      !!!!

A contrast [of political morality and immorality?] being witnessed by all of mankind on 'the world stage' of 'public attention'.

And yet, who is it that most of mankind choose to align themselves with ???          :o




.




Jeremiah 51:17
Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
18  They are vanity, the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.
19  The portion of Jacob is not like them; for he is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the LORD of hosts is his name.
20  Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms;


Deuteronomy 32:8
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9  For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.




.



2 Corinthians 6:16
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.


Exodus 25:8
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.


Exodus 29:45
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.


Exodus 29:46
And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.

Well said, the jealousy just burns inside islam and is evident in its texts and the cults adherents.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 10:44pm:

I reckon sura 5:32 is taken out of context frequently by muslims, they leave out the first bit because this verse doesn't apply to muslims.

Baron is so sure of this, despite being shown the passage clearly saying that the father of the 'children of Israel' was a muslim.

Its interesting to see moses' take on this verse. He disagrees with Baron, arguing instead that the verse does apply to muslims - and the key is the disclaimer "except...for corruption of the land" - which, according to moses, gives muslims virtual carte blanche to kill under the auspices of "corruption".

;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 10:44pm: I reckon sura 5:32 is taken out of context frequently by muslims, they leave out the first bit because this verse doesn't apply to muslims. Baron is so sure of this, despite being shown the passage clearly saying that the father of the 'children of Israel' was a muslim. Its interesting to see moses' take on this verse. He disagrees with Baron, arguing instead that the verse does apply to muslims - and the key is the disclaimer "except...for corruption of the land" - which, according to moses, gives muslims virtual carte blanche to kill under the auspices of "corruption".

According to Moses, Islam is a depraved, murderous cult of death because of the quotes we're discussing here, but Judaism gets off the hook for verses which are far worse. Why?

Because Jews don't actually do any of those things today. You know, Jews are actually disobeying their laws.

Which is also what the supposedly nice Muselmen are doing when they don't go out and crucify everyone or cut off their hands and feet in opposite directions, but just you watch: these Muselmen are just biding their time, practicing taqiyya. They're bound to obey their laws before long.

I blame Islam. Apparently it's now a cult - a death cult.

And they're coming to get us.

Ahh the age old islamic Jew Jealousy. ;D

Islam has always been a cult nothing more.

Karnal wrote:

Quote:

According to Moses, Islam is a depraved, murderous cult of death because of the quotes we're discussing here, but Judaism gets off the hook for verses which are far worse. Why?

Why oh why oh why?

The Jews appear to be light years ahead of the muslims in terms of being a decent 21st century citizen.

They are not desperately trying to implement Judaism across the entire world (in fact it's the very oposite all the Jews want is their historical homeland and to be left in peace)

The Jews are not practicing the ancient atrocities as far as I know, they are progressive and modern.


Now to muslims:

They are the most inbred, low I.Q., barbaric people on this earth today.

Why?

Because they follow allah muhammad and the qur'an to the very letter.

Which results in?

Death, destruction, rape, murder, torture etc. etc..

muslims want islam and sharia to overthrow all other ideologies and laws globally.

So of the two the Jews win hands down.

muslims by their deeds are the losers in the world stakes of decency, by their fruits they are known as an evil degenerate people.

The root cause of their islamic depravity?

islam.

moses wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: According to Moses, Islam is a depraved, murderous cult of death because of the quotes we're discussing here, but Judaism gets off the hook for verses which are far worse. Why? Why oh why oh why? The Jews appear to be light years ahead of the muslims in terms of being a decent 21st century citizen. They are not desperately trying to implement Judaism across the entire world (in fact it's the very oposite all the Jews want is their historical homeland and to be left in peace)

And how did they get that historical homeland, Moses?

I'm curious.

moses wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: According to Moses, Islam is a depraved, murderous cult of death because of the quotes we're discussing here, but Judaism gets off the hook for verses which are far worse. Why? Why oh why oh why? The Jews appear to be light years ahead of the muslims in terms of being a decent 21st century citizen. They are not desperately trying to implement Judaism across the entire world (in fact it's the very oposite all the Jews want is their historical homeland and to be left in peace) The Jews are not practicing the ancient atrocities as far as I know, they are progressive and modern. Now to muslims: They are the most inbred, low I.Q., barbaric people on this earth today. Why? Because they follow allah muhammad and the qur'an to the very letter. Which results in? Death, destruction, rape, murder, torture etc. etc.. muslims want islam and sharia to overthrow all other ideologies and laws globally. So of the two the Jews win hands down. muslims by their deeds are the losers in the world stakes of decency, by their fruits they are known as an evil degenerate people. The root cause of their islamic depravity? islam.

Yep the Jews make muslims look like third world rodents.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 10:26am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 10:44pm: I reckon sura 5:32 is taken out of context frequently by muslims, they leave out the first bit because this verse doesn't apply to muslims. Baron is so sure of this, despite being shown the passage clearly saying that the father of the 'children of Israel' was a muslim.

According to Muhammed, Jews are just Muslims who do not yet realise they are Muslims. Muhammed attempted to re-write Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Gandalf you you think this somehow detracts from Muhammed's hostility to Jews?

Funny how the muslims all came from a Jew, Ishmael who was booted out of the family by Abraham. When I say came from I mean were made up in that lineage 60 years after mohammeds pretend death and existence so the islamic fabel goes.

Sir James wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:

Yep the Jews make muslims look like third world rodents.

James,

Well said!!

LOL





Psalms 73:1
Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.



The fruits, the fruits!!!!

Video tour through Israel.....

Israel ¡Seeing is Believing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgdb6r0MQ4




.





Moslems are such intelligent, clever people [NOT!].    LOL

e.g.
Moslems in Gaza, chose, to send rockets laden with high explosives into Israeli civilian areas,         .....to bombard Israeli civilians with rockets laden with high explosives


"Coz, that's how we will defeat the Zionists, with Terror!

Allah Akbar!!! Allah Akbar!!!"


Yes.


IMAGE.....
http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20140726/ARTICLE/140729382/AR/0/&MaxW=640&imageVersion=default&AR-140729382.jpg

Gaza devastation.


Yeah, those wicked, wicked Jews!       :o   



n.b.
The image above,     ......it could be Syria, Yemen, or Somalia, or Egypt!


The fruits of ISLAM.

Gandalf would it be fair to say that Muhammed started out preaching pacifism when he was in a politically weak position, but ended his career in a strong political position preaching hostility and violence to non-Muslims and to Muslims who were not sufficiently devout?

How do progressive Muslims such as yourself get around the example he set?

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13th, 2016 at 10:26am: Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 12th, 2016 at 10:44pm: I reckon sura 5:32 is taken out of context frequently by muslims, they leave out the first bit because this verse doesn't apply to muslims. Baron is so sure of this, despite being shown the passage clearly saying that the father of the 'children of Israel' was a muslim. According to Muhammed, Jews are just Muslims who do not yet realise they are Muslims. Muhammed attempted to re-write Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Gandalf you you think this somehow detracts from Muhammed's hostility to Jews?

Talmud- Sanhedrin 37a is evidence Muhammad plagiarised the Talmud and not the Torah for his verse 5:32 in the Quran.
quran.com/5/32

5:32 says we have decreed, where in the jewish texts did Allah decree this it is not in the Torah it's in the Talmud where a Rabbi wrote about Cain and Abel, the Talmud is a commentary on the texts much like the Tafsirs in Islam.

The Quran claims Allah decreed this yet the Jews say Sanhedrin 37a came from a Rabbi and had nothing to do with Allah/God, is it any wonder the Jews could see Muhammad was a fraud and rejected him as a prophet in their religion.

Gandalf do you think this shows Muhammad was a fraud when he plagiarised the equivalent of the tafsirs (Talmud) instead of the Quran (Torah) and claimed it came from Allah?

According to the Quran I am a muslim I just haven't realised it  ;D

After Muhammed booted two of the three large tribes of Jews from Medina, but prior to slaughtering the third, he announced in their market place that he was their prophet, that they in fact already knew he was their prophet, and they better admit it, or else.

This is what passes for negotiation skills among Muslims.

ROTFLMAO ;D

Sir James wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

The Game: All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it) to discredit Islam. This leaves the impression that the Quran is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  The "exceptions" are embedded in context with obvious constraints which bind it to a particular place and time (as is usually the case with violent Old Testament passages). -------------- The Truth: It isn't the verses of violence that are rare; it's the ones of peace and tolerance.  The latter were also narrated at an earlier time in Muhammad's life and superseded by what came later.  Neither is the "historical context" of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in many cases. The last chapter of the Quran to be narrated by Muhammad is the most violent.  Worse, the historical context is that Muslims had total power at the time and were not being persecuted or attacked.  In fact, the sura orders believers to "be harsh" to both the unbelievers and Muslims who are peaceful or non-practicing (verse 9:73) and to fight Christians and Jews into a state of submission (verse 9:29) based on nothing other than their status as non-Muslims. These are not the teachings of a religion of peace.  The apologists are forced to play games, such as inventing historical context, pulling "textual context" from an entirely different part of the Quran, or pretending that the true meaning can't be translated to non-Arabic speakers (or to non-Muslims, when native Arabic speakers agree with the translation, as they usually do). A perfect book from a perfect god should be easy to understand, but in the Quran, constructs and topics are jumbled into a random mess with little consistency or coherent stream of thought.  This is underscored by the fact that few Qurans are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original "revelation." Although the apologists often mitigate verses of violence with non-intuitive references to passages in other parts of the Quran, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework.  It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave topics as sensitive as killing and child rape open to human interpretation. Back to historical context.  It's true that references to the external Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life determine when a Quranic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This allows the apologists to opportunistically dismiss the passages they don't like by insisting that they are really just a part of history and not intended to be present-day imperatives. But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Quran that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives). Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation. Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play.  Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there.  They ignore context when it proves inconvenient.  An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword). Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they hold the entire Quran to be the eternal and literal word of Allah... and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/libapps/accounts/48314/images/plagiarism2.gif

I am waiting for someone to point out the errors Greg.

Sir James wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

The Game: All verses of violence were issued during times of war, according to the apologists.  They accuse critics of engaging in “cherry-picking” (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it) to discredit Islam. This leaves the impression that the Quran is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise.  The "exceptions" are embedded in context with obvious constraints which bind it to a particular place and time (as is usually the case with violent Old Testament passages). -------------- The Truth: It isn't the verses of violence that are rare; it's the ones of peace and tolerance.  The latter were also narrated at an earlier time in Muhammad's life and superseded by what came later.  Neither is the "historical context" of these verses of violence all that obvious from the surrounding text in many cases. The last chapter of the Quran to be narrated by Muhammad is the most violent.  Worse, the historical context is that Muslims had total power at the time and were not being persecuted or attacked.  In fact, the sura orders believers to "be harsh" to both the unbelievers and Muslims who are peaceful or non-practicing (verse 9:73) and to fight Christians and Jews into a state of submission (verse 9:29) based on nothing other than their status as non-Muslims. These are not the teachings of a religion of peace.  The apologists are forced to play games, such as inventing historical context, pulling "textual context" from an entirely different part of the Quran, or pretending that the true meaning can't be translated to non-Arabic speakers (or to non-Muslims, when native Arabic speakers agree with the translation, as they usually do). A perfect book from a perfect god should be easy to understand, but in the Quran, constructs and topics are jumbled into a random mess with little consistency or coherent stream of thought.  This is underscored by the fact that few Qurans are printed without extensive commentary which often exceeds the size of the original "revelation." Although the apologists often mitigate verses of violence with non-intuitive references to passages in other parts of the Quran, not all believers are as determined to force the word of Allah into a separate moral framework.  It is unclear why a perfect book from a perfect god would so often leave topics as sensitive as killing and child rape open to human interpretation. Back to historical context.  It's true that references to the external Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad’s life determine when a Quranic verse was narrated and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time.  This allows the apologists to opportunistically dismiss the passages they don't like by insisting that they are really just a part of history and not intended to be present-day imperatives. But “historical context” cuts both ways.  If any verse is a product of history, then they all are.  Indeed, there is not a verse in the Quran that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad’s life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a “revelation” from Allah spurring his people to war, or if he needed the same type of “revelation” to satisfy a lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives). Here is the irony of the “cherry-picking” argument: Those who use “historical context” against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply “historical context” to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation. Context may be the most popular and disingenuous game that Muslims like to play.  Simply put, the apologists appeal to context only when they want it to be there.  They ignore context when it proves inconvenient.  An example of the latter would be the many times in which verse 2:256 is isolated and offered as proof of religious tolerance (in contradiction to Muhammad's later imposition of the jizya and the sword). Islamic purists do not engage in such games.  Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they hold the entire Quran to be the eternal and literal word of Allah... and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

http://www.keble.ox.ac.uk/students/study-skills-and-assistance/plagiarism.gif

I too am waiting for someone to point out the errors Greg.