ILLINOIS: Daughter of convicted Muslim terrorist serving life sentence is Democrat running for Congress

Huh? R U mentally retarded? The only countries practicing legalized slavery today are islamic dimwit. Literally millions of kafir are being enslaved by f’ing muslums right now across Africa in the muslum states of Niger, Mauritania and the Sudan.

The ‘true’ muslum argument is another fallacy of argumentation called the No True Scotsman. The earlier peaceful verses of the holey quranus have been abrogated — by muhamMUD the prophet for profit himself in the holey quranus itself:

koranic quote supporting abrogation:

“2.106: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We
bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power
over all things?”

The Islamic doctrine of abrogation
Dean Esmay is still at it, busy muddying the waters about the
principle of abrogation in the wake of his debacle at the hands of
Michelle Malkin. Now, many people will no doubt ask me again: why are
you bothering with him? The answer is that this really has nothing to
do with him at all, but with people who are sufficiently clear-minded
and objective to be able to consider the facts — and who, because
they haven’t had access to all the information up to this point, may
think like Esmay, or be swayed by his arguments.

In responding to Bryan Preston’s piece which touched on the Islamic
doctrine of naskh, abrogation, Esmay says:

But, first off, please cite for me where the Koran says that a verse
recorded later necessarily supercedes a verse recorded later. I don’t
think you can. (For that matter, find me that as a general Biblical
principle.)
Aside from Esmay’s incoherent request for a Qur’anic verse that says
that what is written later cancels what is written later, there is a
Qur’anic verse that says that when a verse is abrogated, the one that
replaces it is as good as or better than the one it is replacing:
“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but
We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
hath power over all things?” (Qur’an 2:106).

Thus we can see that abrogation, whatever particular form it may take,
is indeed a Qur’anic principle — although not, of course, Esmay’s
caricature of it as some idea that was is later always and necessarily
cancels what is earlier. Esmay then also asks for a Biblical verse
supporting abrogation, but here is his first fallacy: if something is
a doctrine in one religion, that doesn’t mean it is a doctrine in
another. I don’t expect Buddhists to keep kosher, and I don’t look for
Christians to teach the doctrine of abrogation. So all of Esmay’s
lengthy reductio ad absurdum about Matthew and Mark, which I have not
quoted here, is indeed absurd, but not in the way he wanted it to be.

If anything the Koran makes clear that it is whole and complete–which
means that no later part can supercede any earlier part, or vice
versa.
The whole notion that “later is more important than earlier” is the
sort of pseudo-logic that intellectual puffballs like Robert Spencer
and Hot Air’s Bryan trade in.

He is pretending that I have posited this as some sort of general
principle of religion. Of course, I haven’t, and neither has Preston.
But more importantly, his claim that “no later part” of the Qur’an
“can supercede any earlier part, or vice versa” is flatly contradicted
by Qur’an 2:106, as well as by Qur’an 16:101: “When We substitute one
revelation for another, — and Allah knows best what He reveals (in
stages), — they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them
understand not.” Note that 16:101, as well as 2:106, refers to the
substituting of revelations — that is, words of Allah, and probably
portions of the Qur’an (although the Hadith Qudsi are also considered
to be divine revelation, on par with the Qur’an, but they constitute
only a small part of the Hadith).

How does this work? Consider the verses about wine. In one place the
Qur’an says that wine has “some profit” (2:219) for mankind, but
elsewhere declares it an “abomination, of Satan’s handwork” (5:90).
Muslim scholars generally agree that the wine verses are a relatively
clear instance of abrogation. Without abrogation, a pious Muslim would
have to declare that “Satan’s handiwork” offers “some profit” for
mankind.

I sympathise with you and have had the same experience. The Problem is that Islam is not a true religion but a political and social immersion that masquerades as a religion. The same thing can be said of the Nazis and Communists.Moreover,unless entirely rejected and cleansed from one’s body and soul is like a dormant virus ready to spring into action when one’s body or mind is weakened.