In spite of having been falsified over and over again, some atheists continue on insisting that all religions are the same, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of violence on earth is done by Muslims. Atheists continue to assert that both Judeo-Christianity and Islam have reprehensible practices mentioned in them ignoring both time and logic. The parts of the bible that they complain about were written in the Abrahamic Law Code not the Mosaic or Messianic Law Codes. They were written IN BABYLON when that kind of behavior was the norm and when the Jews were individuating from the Tyrannical, Genocidal mentality which is now Iran & Iraq.
Atheists and Muslim apologists argue that Muslims in general are peaceful (ignoring that 1 of the 5 pillars of Islam is Zakat which funds the mujahedeen) and that violent Muslims are doing it incorrectly. We are going to examine this premise logically. You might consider this Arabic exegesis:
Naskh (نسخ) is an Arabic language word usually translated as “abrogation“; It is a term used in Islamic legal exegesis for seemingly contradictory material within or between the two primary sources of Islamic law: the Quran and the Sunna. Several Qur’anic verses state that some revelations have been abrogated and substituted by later revelations. Which are understood by most Muslim scholars as pertaining to the verses of the Quran itself.
The principle of abrogation of an older verse by a new verse of Quran, or within the Hadiths is a well established principle in Sharia. The possibility of abrogation between these two primary sources of Islam, though, has been a more contentious issue. The allowability of abrogation between sources has been one of the major differences between the Shafi’i and Hanafi fiqhs, with Shafi’i sect of jurisprudence forbidding abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān, while Hanafi sect allowing abrogation by the Sunna of the Qur’ān.
Let’s examine the logic of this practice, if you are going to use the philosophy of Islam you are making a tacit appeal to the Authority of Mohammed. In doing so you have to admit that Mad Moe knew himself better than anyone else, he also knew what he thought when he was younger. So if he contradicted himself you have to assume that the last thing he said was more correct than the first thin he said or else you have to offer some explanation for the disparity which would presuppose the person making the judgment has more authority than the prophet that they follow which would be illogical.
In the same vein Atheists and Muslim apologists have to admit and acknowledge that while the Judeo-Christian scriptures started off more violent than they ended (after all Jesus was not a murderer and didn’t condone murder, while Mohammed was a child raping genocidal, serial, murderer) that Judeo-Christianity is peaceful and therefore actually a religion of peace as are most other major religions in the world.
Anyway, the Muslim apologists might be able to fool the weak minded Atheists and Lib-tard progressives but in their heart of hearts they know that they are lying and that Islam is not a religion of peace and can never evolve. I call on all Atheists to drop this line of reasoning and I condemn Richard Dawkins for the first chapter of his book The God Delusion.