This VIDEO demonstrated the the earlier peaceful versus are overwritten by the later ones that advocate killing infidels..
The doctrine is called THE ABROGATORS AND THE ABROGATED.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
It might be helpful to know that some Qurans have either a note, or even a commentary, that sheds light on the context of a surah (chapter) or verse. For example Pickthall’s translation has at the beginning of each surah the phrase “Revealed at Al-Madinah” or “Revealed at Mecca.” (Remember the video explains how the nicer verses were the ones from when Muhammed was still at Mecca, before he went to Medina.) One of my Abdullah Yusuf Ali translated Qurans has no such notes, but another Quran also translated by him includes whether a sura is Meccan or Medinan in his brief introduction to each surah. Muhammad Asad’s translation puts it in the intros, too. Ahmed Ali’s translation assigns to each surah the word “Makki” or “Madani.”
But one of the most helpful Qurans to me when it comes to this abrogation stuff is a Saudi Quran that has commentary along the bottom and some helpfl indexes, it’s called Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language and is translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, but what’s so helpful is that the notes go far beyond just saying whether a surah is from the Meccan or Medinan period, and actually point out abrogated verses and what’s replaced them. For ex, on the page for surah 2:09, it says at the bottom
about which, take note, when you go to 9:29, the new verse that’s replaced the “forgive and overlook” 2:109 verse, 9:29 says:
I recommend this as a translation to own alongside others, because it tells you how the Wahhabis for sure, and many other Muslims as well, view their scriptures. The commentary at the bottom comes from respected hadith, sira, and history texts. There is the objection that this translation has inserted parenthetical expressions into the text, i.e., added to the Qur’an, but since these are in parentheses, we can all see what was original and what’s been added (for clarification or perversion, your call).
Correction: By mistake, I viewed the next clip in the series that comes to the defense of Islam and criticizes THE ABROGATORS AND THE ABROGATED. I went back just now to watch the original. As a result, my comments will seem a bit out of context.
The presenter asks the audience to be fair – religious teachings were all somewhat violent and much different from the norms of today when we measure them against modern mores and laws.
However, I only know one religion, Islam, which takes its own violent teachings so seriously that it will use any abrogation (or the original) to justify conquest; past, present and future. Everything, including the law, is secondary to these ancient and very flawed accounts of a man’s life, tradition and times.
I have no doubt that the origins of most religions are harsh – they are written by people of a different era who had much different ways. Anyone dumb enough to blindly follow a religion that commands its followers to engage in endless jihad and terrorism today has to be nuts or the victim of a mind-altering cult.
In Texas these past few days we have been witnessing a cult that believes in child rape and other weird acts of weirdness and perversion. People will try to justify anything by calling it a religion. Some cults have gone on for too long and have become impossible to stop. The huge following it has makes it no less repugnant and it is in drastic need of change or a total revision.