The terrorism of Muhammad and Islam as explained by a follower

[PeteWaldo]

Now that we've completed discussion of any preposterous notion that the Gospel somehow became the exact opposite of what it had been in Muhammad's day, through your abject inability to explain why you vainly wish that the impossibility of scripture corruption after Muhammad were even a possibility, let's move on to exploring the terrorist that you follow and why. Fortunately Muhammadan books make it abundantly clear that Muhammad was one of the most consummate, as well as conveniently self-admitted, terrorists in the history of mankind.

Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

And Muhammad on his alter-ego "Allah":

Surah 33:26 Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts.

Of course it wasn't Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah" that cast terror into their hearts, but Muhammad himself.
Please tell us why you reject the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind and the love of the Prince of Peace/Passover Lamb of God as revealed in that record, to follow a stand-alone, counter-gospel, 7th-century self-admitted terrorist?
(indeed through your blasphemy against Him even repeatedly attempted to falsely accuse Him as being a "warlord" in efforts to bring Him down to Muhammad's murderous reprobate level)

After you reply I will split this post off as a separate subject, since you listed terrorism as one of the things you would address, in your email to me.

[Al-Fatihah]

Now that we've completed discussion of any preposterous notion that the Gospel somehow became the exact opposite of what it had been in Muhammad's day, through your abject inability to explain why you vainly wish that the impossibility of scripture corruption after Muhammad were even a possibility, let's move on to exploring the terrorist that you follow and why. Fortunately Muhammadan books make it abundantly clear that Muhammad was one of the most consummate, as well as conveniently self-admitted, terrorists in the history of mankind.

Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

And Muhammad on his alter-ego "Allah":

Surah 33:26 Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts.

Of course it wasn't Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah" that cast terror into their hearts, but Muhammad himself.
Please tell us why you reject the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind and the love of the Prince of Peace/Passover Lamb of God as revealed in that record, to follow a stand-alone, counter-gospel, 7th-century self-admitted terrorist?
(indeed through your blasphemy against Him even repeatedly attempted to falsely accuse Him as being a "warlord" in efforts to bring Him down to Muhammad's murderous reprobate level)

After you reply I will split this post off as a separate subject, since you listed terrorism as one of the things you would address, in your email to me.

Response: You have no evidence that the Bible was uniformly the same, and we know it was not because there are over 24, 000 manuscripts of the Bible and no two are identical. Your own Christian scholars said Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 are false. In fact, these verses and others were thrown out in the REVISED standard version in 1952, which claims to go back to the oldest manuscripts. Then 32 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations claimed the Bible had serious defects and they revised it AGAIN, except this time they put the verses that were thrown out back in it again because they were pressured to do so.

So the evidence is clear your Bible is false and was NOT uniformly the same, and your Christian scholars admit to it.

[PeteWaldo]

Now that we've completed discussion of any preposterous notion that the Gospel somehow became the exact opposite of what it had been in Muhammad's day, through your abject inability to explain why you vainly wish that the impossibility of scripture corruption after Muhammad were even a possibility, let's move on to exploring the terrorist that you follow and why. Fortunately Muhammadan books make it abundantly clear that Muhammad was one of the most consummate, as well as conveniently self-admitted, terrorists in the history of mankind.

Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

And Muhammad on his alter-ego "Allah":

Surah 33:26 Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts.

Of course it wasn't Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah" that cast terror into their hearts, but Muhammad himself.
Please tell us why you reject the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind and the love of the Prince of Peace/Passover Lamb of God as revealed in that record, to follow a stand-alone, counter-gospel, 7th-century self-admitted terrorist?
(indeed through your blasphemy against Him even repeatedly attempted to falsely accuse Him as being a "warlord" in efforts to bring Him down to Muhammad's murderous reprobate level)

After you reply I will split this post off as a separate subject, since you listed terrorism as one of the things you would address, in your email to me.

Response: You have no evidence that the Bible was uniformly the same, and we know it was not because there are over 24, 000 manuscripts of the Bible and no two are identical. Your own Christian scholars said Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 are false. In fact, these verses and others were thrown out in the REVISED standard version in 1952, which claims to go back to the oldest manuscripts. Then 32 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations claimed the Bible had serious defects and they revised it AGAIN, except this time they put the verses that were thrown out back in it again because they were pressured to do so.

So the evidence is clear your Bible is false and was NOT uniformly the same, and your Christian scholars admit to it.

How does that reply even in small part, to the subject of terrorism that you quoted?
Do you see why we had to institute forum rules?
I will split this topic off, and then this time why don't you actually try to offer a substantive reply, to what you quote?

[Al-Fatihah]

How does that reply even in small part, to the subject of terrorism that you quoted?
Do you see why we had to institute forum rules?
I will split this topic off, and then this time why don't you actually try to offer a substantive reply, to what you quote?

Response: It wasn't in response to that. If you stop changing subjects in threads and chopping them up then perhaps you will not have difficulty.

[ExMilitary]

You have no evidence that the Bible was uniformly the same, and we know it was not because there are over 24, 000 manuscripts of the Bible and no two are identical.

That argument TRIES to imply that, because there are so many variants (over 150,000 to be precise), it is impossible to know what was originally being taught.

What you FAIL to share though is that nearly ALL variants are minor... a different letter, different word order, etc.  For example:

Manuscript #1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #2: In the beginning, God created the earth and the heavens.
Manuscript #3: At the beginning, God made the heaven_ and the earth.
Manuscript #4: In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #5: In the beginning, God created the sky and the earth.

Now, repeat this process on this passage for tens/hundreds/thousands of manuscripts, realizing that they all say essentially the same thing, and 85% or more of them are nearly identical: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

You soon realize that the argument about "different manuscripts" is a tempest in a teapot.  In fact, there is no tempest, nor is there a teapot.  It is fluff, mist, a cloud without rain.

Your own Christian scholars said Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 are false. In fact, these verses and others were thrown out in the REVISED standard version in 1952, which claims to go back to the oldest manuscripts.

And?

Then 32 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations claimed the Bible had serious defects and they revised it AGAIN, except this time they put the verses that were thrown out back in it again because they were pressured to do so.

And Islam has not suffered the folly of "scholars"?  Just look at Shiite and Sunni divisions that date all the way back to the time (nearly) of Muhammad.  Why would you thrust "scholars" upon what I believe when you would NEVER dare do the same to yourself regarding the obvious scholarly divisions within Islam?

The issue isn't about what "scholars" say, rather the issue is the Gospel.


Now, what about Muhammad's terrorism?

[Al-Fatihah]

You have no evidence that the Bible was uniformly the same, and we know it was not because there are over 24, 000 manuscripts of the Bible and no two are identical.

That argument TRIES to imply that, because there are so many variants (over 150,000 to be precise), it is impossible to know what was originally being taught.

What you FAIL to share though is that nearly ALL variants are minor... a different letter, different word order, etc.  For example:

Manuscript #1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #2: In the beginning, God created the earth and the heavens.
Manuscript #3: At the beginning, God made the heaven_ and the earth.
Manuscript #4: In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth.
Manuscript #5: In the beginning, God created the sky and the earth.

Now, repeat this process on this passage for tens/hundreds/thousands of manuscripts, realizing that they all say essentially the same thing, and 85% or more of them are nearly identical: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

You soon realize that the argument about "different manuscripts" is a tempest in a teapot.  In fact, there is no tempest, nor is there a teapot.  It is fluff, mist, a cloud without rain.

Your own Christian scholars said Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 are false. In fact, these verses and others were thrown out in the REVISED standard version in 1952, which claims to go back to the oldest manuscripts.

And?

Then 32 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations claimed the Bible had serious defects and they revised it AGAIN, except this time they put the verses that were thrown out back in it again because they were pressured to do so.

And Islam has not suffered the folly of "scholars"?  Just look at Shiite and Sunni divisions that date all the way back to the time (nearly) of Muhammad.  Why would you thrust "scholars" upon what I believe when you would NEVER dare do the same to yourself regarding the obvious scholarly divisions within Islam?

The issue isn't about what "scholars" say, rather the issue is the Gospel.


Now, what about Muhammad's terrorism?

Response: To the contrary, what you just confirmed is that no two are identical. So regardless as to whether the variant is major or minor, they still are not consistent. Furthermore, which variant was in the original? You do not know because you do not know what the original looks like. So yes it is impossible to know what was originally stated because you have no clue which variant was the original one.

The Qur'an on the other hand has no corruption, and was preserved by the companions of the Prophet which can be verified from a reliable chain of transmission.

As for terrorism, Muhammad (saw) never committed terrorism.

So you have no clue

[PeteWaldo]

How does that reply even in small part, to the subject of terrorism that you quoted?
Do you see why we had to institute forum rules?
I will split this topic off, and then this time why don't you actually try to offer a substantive reply, to what you quote?

Response: It wasn't in response to that. If you stop changing subjects in threads and chopping them up then perhaps you will not have difficulty.

I started the next subject because we had exhausted the first. The fact is it would have been a physical impossibile to change tens of thousands of copies of the gospel in all of those languages, that had been read and followed all over the known world, to become the exact opposite of what they had been so many centuries later.
Just as you tacitly admitted through your dumbfounded absence of an explanation for that preposterous impossibility you suggested.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4714.msg18120#msg18120

Since you do not, cannot, and never will have an explanation as to how that would have been accomplished, that subject is complete. Either explain, or let it go.

The actual answer is that Muhammad dithered on in his earlier Mecca drivel, that he obviously later on regretted blundering so.

So please respond to the rest of that post regarding this new subject of terrorism.

[Al-Fatihah]

I started the next subject because we had exhausted the first. The fact is it would have been a physical impossibile to change tens of thousands of copies of the gospel in all of those languages, that had been read and followed all over the known world, to become the exact opposite of what they had been so many centuries later.
Just as you tacitly admitted through your dumbfounded absence of an explanation for that preposterous impossibility you suggested.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4714.msg18120#msg18120

Since you do not, cannot, and never will have an explanation as to how that would have been accomplished, that subject is complete. Either explain, or let it go.

The actual answer is that Muhammad dithered on in his earlier Mecca drivel, that he obviously later on regretted blundering so.

So please respond to the rest of that post regarding this new subject of terrorism.

Response: The text was never preserved from the start, which is proven by the fact that there are 24,000 manuscripts and no two are identical. So it is not a case of changing thousands of copies because it was corrupted early on before there were thousands. Your point remains invalid.

As for terrorism, the Qur'an is clear that it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61). So the claim of terrorism is invalid.

[ExMilitary]

Response: To the contrary, what you just confirmed is that no two are identical. So regardless as to whether the variant is major or minor, they still are not consistent. Furthermore, which variant was in the original? You do not know because you do not know what the original looks like. So yes it is impossible to know what was originally stated because you have no clue which variant was the original one.

The Qur'an on the other hand has no corruption, and was preserved by the companions of the Prophet which can be verified from a reliable chain of transmission.

Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Doesn't sound reliable to me.  In fact if  you find 2 different versions of a revelation, which one is correct?

You have 2 choices, 1.  The "chain of transmission" (as you call it) was corrupt or, 2. Muhammad couldn't remember his own revelations.

[PeteWaldo]

I started the next subject because we had exhausted the first. The fact is it would have been a physical impossibile to change tens of thousands of copies of the gospel in all of those languages, that had been read and followed all over the known world, to become the exact opposite of what they had been so many centuries later.
Just as you tacitly admitted through your dumbfounded absence of an explanation for that preposterous impossibility you suggested.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4714.msg18120#msg18120

Since you do not, cannot, and never will have an explanation as to how that would have been accomplished, that subject is complete. Either explain, or let it go.

The actual answer is that Muhammad dithered on in his earlier Mecca drivel, that he obviously later on regretted blundering so.

So please respond to the rest of that post regarding this new subject of terrorism.

Response: The text was never preserved from the start, which is proven by the fact that there are 24,000 manuscripts and no two are identical. So it is not a case of changing thousands of copies because it was corrupted early on before there were thousands. Your point remains invalid.

As for terrorism, the Qur'an is clear that it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61). So the claim of terrorism is invalid.

That's pretty entertaining. I suppose next you'll be pulling the ole "no compulsion" rabbit out of the hat. Unfortunately the verse you cite was among Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel that he later regretted dithering on with.

Here is one of the later substituting verses:

Surah 9.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
 
Of course that's a filthy lie regarding the Gospel binding Christians to fight and slay, but it is indeed binding on Muhammad's non-hypocrite, true, orthodox followers.

As further confirmed by the Hadith:

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Of course it would be sheer blasphemy against our great God for a Christian or Jew to testify to that.

You see my friend, your argument isn't with us, but with true fundamental orthodox followers of Muhammad, like the Islamic scholar Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as further confirmed by 1400 years of imperialistic slaughter, female prisoner rape, thievery and subjugation of non-Muslims to Muhammad's followers.

[Al-Fatihah]

Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Doesn't sound reliable to me.  In fact if  you find 2 different versions of a revelation, which one is correct?

You have 2 choices, 1.  The "chain of transmission" (as you call it) was corrupt or, 2. Muhammad couldn't remember his own revelations.

Response: The Qur'an also says it is protected from corruption (15:9). So it is very reliable. Nor can you find any error or indecency in the Qur'an or produce a chapter like it as prove that it is human-made.

So you have two choices. 1. Accept the Qur'an is the true word of Allah or 2. deny the Truth and be punished in the Hereafter.

[Al-Fatihah]

That's pretty entertaining. I suppose next you'll be pulling the ole "no compulsion" rabbit out of the hat. Unfortunately the verse you cite was among Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel that he later regretted dithering on with.

Here is one of the later substituting verses:

Surah 9.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
 
Of course that's a filthy lie regarding the Gospel binding Christians to fight and slay, but it is indeed binding on Muhammad's non-hypocrite, true, orthodox followers.

As further confirmed by the Hadith:

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Of course it would be sheer blasphemy against our great God for a Christian or Jew to testify to that.

You see my friend, your argument isn't with us, but with true fundamental orthodox followers of Muhammad, like the Islamic scholar Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as further confirmed by 1400 years of imperialistic slaughter, female prisoner rape, thievery and subjugation of non-Muslims to Muhammad's followers.

Response: The classic "abrogation" argument. the same ole argument that Christians like to use. The sad part is that you are about to be exposed with your own argument. For in order to claim the verse is abrogated, that means Muhammad told the truth. Thus the Qur'an is TRUE.

Yet you deny the Qur'an is true, thus your argument of abrogation is false. Debunked by your own logic.

[PeteWaldo]

That's pretty entertaining. I suppose next you'll be pulling the ole "no compulsion" rabbit out of the hat. Unfortunately the verse you cite was among Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel that he later regretted dithering on with.

Here is one of the later substituting verses:

Surah 9.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah. then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
 
Of course that's a filthy lie regarding the Gospel binding Christians to fight and slay, but it is indeed binding on Muhammad's non-hypocrite, true, orthodox followers.

As further confirmed by the Hadith:

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Of course it would be sheer blasphemy against our great God for a Christian or Jew to testify to that.

You see my friend, your argument isn't with us, but with true fundamental orthodox followers of Muhammad, like the Islamic scholar Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as further confirmed by 1400 years of imperialistic slaughter, female prisoner rape, thievery and subjugation of non-Muslims to Muhammad's followers.

Response: The classic "abrogation" argument. the same ole argument that Christians like to use. The sad part is that you are about to be exposed with your own argument. For in order to claim the verse is abrogated, that means Muhammad told the truth. Thus the Qur'an is TRUE.

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Yet you deny the Qur'an is true, thus your argument of abrogation is false. Debunked by your own logic.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because Christians and Jews know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are Islam's victims, but not as much as the poor souls that are filled with the spirit of antichrist by following Muhammad alone.

[Al-Fatihah]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.



Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful since you claim he truly said those words, which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet. Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

[ExMilitary]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.



Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful since you claim he truly said those words, which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet. Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Did Muhammad exist?  Yes, very likely.  Did he speak? Yes, very likely.  Does the Quran contain his words?  Yes, very likely.  Do these facts MAKE those words true?  Um... no.

To come to the conclusion that |someone saying Muhammad existed and spoke = they are affirming what he said is true|  is a mind-boggling lack of logic and leap of blindness.

[Al-Fatihah]

Did Muhammad exist?  Yes, very likely.  Did he speak? Yes, very likely.  Does the Quran contain his words?  Yes, very likely.  Do these facts MAKE those words true?  Um... no.

To come to the conclusion that |someone saying Muhammad existed and spoke = they are affirming what he said is true|  is a mind-boggling lack of logic and leap of blindness.

Response: And what is even more flawed in logic is to say that the words of Muhammad regarding abrogation are true, which makes him trustworthy according to your logic. Then say you do not believe his other sayings regarding he is a Prophet because it is not truthful. That is a contradiction in logic.

Your inability to see that only further supports the delusion in your position and fails validate the argument of abrogation. Debunked as usual. Try again.

[PeteWaldo]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful ......

No, it means that Muhammadans believe it is truthful. It has nothing to do with logic.

...... since you claim he truly said those words, .........

What matters is what Muhammadans who follow him believe. And orthodox Muslims know those early more peaceful suras that you cite, are thrown out in favor of Muhammad's later, violent verses, that call his followers to "fight and slay" others as "binding" on them "in the Quran".

...... which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet.

The Quran's lies are of no significance to anyone outside of Muhammadanism except, as they incite Muhammad's true orthodox followers, into their reprobate murderous behavior against the rest of us.

Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Gwaffaw!!!!!!
Like 800 years of Islamic genocide perpetrated against Hindus in India!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4712.0
Like the Armenian genocide.
Like Muhammad's beheading of the innocent, peaceful, faithful Jewish farm boys of the Banu Qurayza and rape of their little sisters, mothers and grandmothers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm#jesus_was_crucified
Let alone the reciprocal murder of Sunnis and Shiites.

And yes I do believe Islam's books when they detail the purely reprobate behavior of Muhammad. Like he and his boys rape of captive women:

Bukhari:V5B59N459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

Bukhari B#62, #137 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Indeed most everything that demonstrates the pure evil of Muhammad and his followers is believable, because they follow Satan himself.

[PeteWaldo]

Did Muhammad exist?  Yes, very likely.  Did he speak? Yes, very likely.  Does the Quran contain his words?  Yes, very likely.  Do these facts MAKE those words true?  Um... no.

To come to the conclusion that |someone saying Muhammad existed and spoke = they are affirming what he said is true|  is a mind-boggling lack of logic and leap of blindness.

Response: And what is even more flawed in logic is to say that the words of Muhammad regarding abrogation are true, which makes him trustworthy according to your logic. Then say you do not believe his other sayings regarding he is a Prophet because it is not truthful. That is a contradiction in logic.

Not at all. I don't doubt that many of those things that demonstrate the pure evil of Islam, are true, because Muhammad and his followers are antichrists.

Your inability to see that only further supports the delusion in your position and fails validate the argument of abrogation. Debunked as usual. Try again.

[Al-Fatihah]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful ......

No, it means that Muhammadans believe it is truthful. It has nothing to do with logic.

...... since you claim he truly said those words, .........

What matters is what Muhammadans who follow him believe. And orthodox Muslims know those early more peaceful suras that you cite, are thrown out in favor of Muhammad's later, violent verses, that call his followers to "fight and slay" others as "binding" on them "in the Quran".

...... which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet.

The Quran's lies are of no significance to anyone outside of Muhammadanism except, as they incite Muhammad's true orthodox followers, into their reprobate murderous behavior against the rest of us.

Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Gwaffaw!!!!!!
Like 800 years of Islamic genocide perpetrated against Hindus in India!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4712.0
Like the Armenian genocide.
Like Muhammad's beheading of the innocent, peaceful, faithful Jewish farm boys of the Banu Qurayza and rape of their little sisters, mothers and grandmothers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm#jesus_was_crucified
Let alone the reciprocal murder of Sunnis and Shiites.

And yes I do believe Islam's books when they detail the purely reprobate behavior of Muhammad. Like he and his boys rape of captive women:

Bukhari:V5B59N459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

Bukhari B#62, #137 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Indeed most everything that demonstrates the pure evil of Muhammad and his followers is believable, because they follow Satan himself.

Response: You made the claim that it is true that Muhammad says the verse is abrogated, which means that your logic says Muhammad spoke the truth. Yet you deny him when he says he is a Prophet, which makes him untrue. Thus your argument for abrogation is also untrue according to your flawed logic. Debunked as usual. Try again.

[PeteWaldo]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful ......

No, it means that Muhammadans believe it is truthful. It has nothing to do with logic.

...... since you claim he truly said those words, .........

What matters is what Muhammadans who follow him believe. And orthodox Muslims know those early more peaceful suras that you cite, are thrown out in favor of Muhammad's later, violent verses, that call his followers to "fight and slay" others as "binding" on them "in the Quran".

...... which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet.

The Quran's lies are of no significance to anyone outside of Muhammadanism except, as they incite Muhammad's true orthodox followers, into their reprobate murderous behavior against the rest of us.

Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Gwaffaw!!!!!!
Like 800 years of Islamic genocide perpetrated against Hindus in India!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4712.0
Like the Armenian genocide.
Like Muhammad's beheading of the innocent, peaceful, faithful Jewish farm boys of the Banu Qurayza and rape of their little sisters, mothers and grandmothers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm#jesus_was_crucified
Let alone the reciprocal murder of Sunnis and Shiites.

And yes I do believe Islam's books when they detail the purely reprobate behavior of Muhammad. Like he and his boys rape of captive women:

Bukhari:V5B59N459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

Bukhari B#62, #137 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Indeed most everything that demonstrates the pure evil of Muhammad and his followers is believable, because they follow Satan himself.

Response: You made the claim that it is true that Muhammad says the verse is abrogated, which means that your logic says Muhammad spoke the truth.

Already answered. The parts that demonstrate Islam's pure evil are believable enough. Even Muhammadans pick and choose what they like in the Quran and Hadith, while discarding what they don't like.

I choose to believe those parts that confirm what a moral reprobate Muhammad was.
You wishfully choose the parts from Muhammad's early Mecca days, that were thrown out and substituted, by his later verses to fight and slay others.

Yet you deny him when he says he is a Prophet, which makes him untrue.

Every Christian and Jew with the slightest clue as to the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind knows Muhammad was a STAND-ALONE false prophet.

Thus your argument for abrogation is also untrue according to your flawed logic. Debunked as usual. Try again.

[Al-Fatihah]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful ......

No, it means that Muhammadans believe it is truthful. It has nothing to do with logic.

...... since you claim he truly said those words, .........

What matters is what Muhammadans who follow him believe. And orthodox Muslims know those early more peaceful suras that you cite, are thrown out in favor of Muhammad's later, violent verses, that call his followers to "fight and slay" others as "binding" on them "in the Quran".

...... which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet.

The Quran's lies are of no significance to anyone outside of Muhammadanism except, as they incite Muhammad's true orthodox followers, into their reprobate murderous behavior against the rest of us.

Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Gwaffaw!!!!!!
Like 800 years of Islamic genocide perpetrated against Hindus in India!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4712.0
Like the Armenian genocide.
Like Muhammad's beheading of the innocent, peaceful, faithful Jewish farm boys of the Banu Qurayza and rape of their little sisters, mothers and grandmothers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm#jesus_was_crucified
Let alone the reciprocal murder of Sunnis and Shiites.

And yes I do believe Islam's books when they detail the purely reprobate behavior of Muhammad. Like he and his boys rape of captive women:

Bukhari:V5B59N459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

Bukhari B#62, #137 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Indeed most everything that demonstrates the pure evil of Muhammad and his followers is believable, because they follow Satan himself.

Response: You made the claim that it is true that Muhammad says the verse is abrogated, which means that your logic says Muhammad spoke the truth.

Already answered. The parts that demonstrate Islam's pure evil are believable enough. Even Muhammadans pick and choose what they like in the Quran and Hadith, while discarding what they don't like.

I choose to believe those parts that confirm what a moral reprobate Muhammad was.
You wishfully choose the parts from Muhammad's early Mecca days, that were thrown out and substituted, by his later verses to fight and slay others.

Yet you deny him when he says he is a Prophet, which makes him untrue.

Every Christian and Jew with the slightest clue as to the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind knows Muhammad was a STAND-ALONE false prophet.

Thus your argument for abrogation is also untrue according to your flawed logic. Debunked as usual. Try again.

Response: You claimed Muhammad (saw) said the verse was abrogated. Not me. So it is you logic that says Muhammad was truthful in his claim. Then you turn around and deny his Prophet which makes him untruthful. You cannot have it both ways. Thus exposing the inconsistency in your lgic and exposing your argument of abrogation is flawed. Debunked as usual. Try again.

[PeteWaldo]

Muslims indeed believe the quran is true. That is hundreds of millions of them believe it is Islam's job to rule the world. Why so many understand that to fight and slay as binding on them in the Quran. Of course the apostate hypocrites were afraid to, both in Muhammad's day, as well as throughout the next 1400 years.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Well that's right. Muhammad's doctrine of substitution does not relate to me, because I know the Quran is filled with satanic lies, from the father of lies himself.
However Muslims do indeed believe the Quran is truth, so the doctrine of substitution is how sort out inoperative verses like the more peaceful drivel you posted. The rest of mankind are their victims.

Response: Yet is YOU who says the verse of abrogation says the verse in the Qur'an is cancelled. That means according to your logic, Muhammad is truthful ......

No, it means that Muhammadans believe it is truthful. It has nothing to do with logic.

...... since you claim he truly said those words, .........

What matters is what Muhammadans who follow him believe. And orthodox Muslims know those early more peaceful suras that you cite, are thrown out in favor of Muhammad's later, violent verses, that call his followers to "fight and slay" others as "binding" on them "in the Quran".

...... which means he is also truthful when he says he is a Prophet.

The Quran's lies are of no significance to anyone outside of Muhammadanism except, as they incite Muhammad's true orthodox followers, into their reprobate murderous behavior against the rest of us.

Yet you deny he is a Prophet, therefore, your logic of abrogation fails.

Debunked by your own logic.

Thus it is clear that Islam is peaceful as proven by the fact that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256), and it is prohibited to fight those who incline to peace (8:61).

Gwaffaw!!!!!!
Like 800 years of Islamic genocide perpetrated against Hindus in India!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4712.0
Like the Armenian genocide.
Like Muhammad's beheading of the innocent, peaceful, faithful Jewish farm boys of the Banu Qurayza and rape of their little sisters, mothers and grandmothers.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm#jesus_was_crucified
Let alone the reciprocal murder of Sunnis and Shiites.

And yes I do believe Islam's books when they detail the purely reprobate behavior of Muhammad. Like he and his boys rape of captive women:

Bukhari:V5B59N459 Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

Bukhari B#62, #137 Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Indeed most everything that demonstrates the pure evil of Muhammad and his followers is believable, because they follow Satan himself.

Response: You made the claim that it is true that Muhammad says the verse is abrogated, which means that your logic says Muhammad spoke the truth.

Already answered. The parts that demonstrate Islam's pure evil are believable enough. Even Muhammadans pick and choose what they like in the Quran and Hadith, while discarding what they don't like.

I choose to believe those parts that confirm what a moral reprobate Muhammad was.
You wishfully choose the parts from Muhammad's early Mecca days, that were thrown out and substituted, by his later verses to fight and slay others.

Yet you deny him when he says he is a Prophet, which makes him untrue.

Every Christian and Jew with the slightest clue as to the 1600 year record of Yahweh to mankind knows Muhammad was a STAND-ALONE false prophet.

Thus your argument for abrogation is also untrue according to your flawed logic. Debunked as usual. Try again.

Response: You claimed Muhammad (saw) said the verse was abrogated. Not me. So it is you logic that says Muhammad was truthful in his claim. Then you turn around and deny his Prophet which makes him untruthful. You cannot have it both ways.

Of course I can. Just like other Muhammadans that come here your mind has lost its capacity for critical thought. By your premise, I must believe that every single thing in the Quran and Hadith must necessarily be wrong, or never happened, because Muhammad was a false prophet. Can't even you see how ridiculous your premise is?

As I explained, I find that much of the content of the Quran and Hadith that exposes the reprobate nature of Muhammad and the pure evil of Islam whether true or not, is believable enough. Just as we can see through the behavior of true fundamental orthodox Muslims all around the world.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm

And because of Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, that he was compelled to institute because even he saw what a contradictory mess he had made of the Quran over the short span of just 23 years, a good rule of thumb is to conclude that all of the the earlier more peaceful "recitations" are thrown out, for the later suras in which Muhammad calls his followers to fight and slay non-Muslims, after Muhammad suffered what might well have been a psychotic break. Perhaps sparked by loosing Khadijah.

Thus exposing the inconsistency in your lgic and exposing your argument of abrogation is flawed.

My friend, as you can see it is your argument that is not just illogical, but absolutely ridiculous.

Debunked as usual. Try again.

[Al-Fatihah]

Of course I can. Just like other Muhammadans that come here your mind has lost its capacity for critical thought. By your premise, I must believe that every single thing in the Quran and Hadith must necessarily be wrong, or never happened, because Muhammad was a false prophet. Can't even you see how ridiculous your premise is?

As I explained, I find that much of the content of the Quran and Hadith that exposes the reprobate nature of Muhammad and the pure evil of Islam whether true or not, is believable enough. Just as we can see through the behavior of true fundamental orthodox Muslims all around the world.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm

And because of Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, that he was compelled to institute because even he saw what a contradictory mess he had made of the Quran over the short span of just 23 years, a good rule of thumb is to conclude that all of the the earlier more peaceful "recitations" are thrown out, for the later suras in which Muhammad calls his followers to fight and slay non-Muslims, after Muhammad suffered what might well have been a psychotic break. Perhaps sparked by loosing Khadijah.


My friend, as you can see it is your argument that is not just illogical, but absolutely ridiculous.

Response: By my logic, you don't call a source reliable and unreliable at the same time, like your simple-mined logic says. Stating Muhammad (saw) said the verses were abrogated are true words, means Muhammad is truthful Then you say he is not a Prophet, which makes him untruthful So your logic is based on a contradiction, thus your weak argument of abrogation fails.

[PeteWaldo]

Of course I can. Just like other Muhammadans that come here your mind has lost its capacity for critical thought. By your premise, I must believe that every single thing in the Quran and Hadith must necessarily be wrong, or never happened, because Muhammad was a false prophet. Can't even you see how ridiculous your premise is?

As I explained, I find that much of the content of the Quran and Hadith that exposes the reprobate nature of Muhammad and the pure evil of Islam whether true or not, is believable enough. Just as we can see through the behavior of true fundamental orthodox Muslims all around the world.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm

And because of Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, that he was compelled to institute because even he saw what a contradictory mess he had made of the Quran over the short span of just 23 years, a good rule of thumb is to conclude that all of the the earlier more peaceful "recitations" are thrown out, for the later suras in which Muhammad calls his followers to fight and slay non-Muslims, after Muhammad suffered what might well have been a psychotic break. Perhaps sparked by loosing Khadijah.


My friend, as you can see it is your argument that is not just illogical, but absolutely ridiculous.

Response: By my logic, you don't call a source reliable and unreliable at the same time, ........

Nor, or course would I ever consider anything about the false prophet Muhammad and his cult "reliable". As the video you cited in your first post points out, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that any of it existed that dates to prior to the 690s.

........ like your simple-mined logic says. Stating Muhammad (saw) said the verses were abrogated are true words, means Muhammad is truthful ........

No it means he saw what a horrifically contradictory mess he had made of his recitations over the short span of just 23 years. And I've no doubt he would have tried to get away with it if the Quraish hadn't kept pointing out to his contraditions and that he was rehashing "tales of the ancients", so he was compelled to arrange another "revelation" from his alter-ego "Allah", through which he pretended he was told to institute the doctrine of substitution.

...... Then you say he is not a Prophet, ......

If Muhammad was other than a false prophet then the prophets and witnesses in the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants for 3500 years, were false.

...... which makes him untruthful So your logic is based on a contradiction, thus your weak argument of abrogation fails.

Not at all. Muhammad realized what a mess he and his alter-ego "Allah" made in his satanic recitations, over the short span of just 23 years. The only weird thing to me, is that even you can't see that.

[Al-Fatihah]

Of course I can. Just like other Muhammadans that come here your mind has lost its capacity for critical thought. By your premise, I must believe that every single thing in the Quran and Hadith must necessarily be wrong, or never happened, because Muhammad was a false prophet. Can't even you see how ridiculous your premise is?

As I explained, I find that much of the content of the Quran and Hadith that exposes the reprobate nature of Muhammad and the pure evil of Islam whether true or not, is believable enough. Just as we can see through the behavior of true fundamental orthodox Muslims all around the world.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm

And because of Muhammad's doctrine of substitution, that he was compelled to institute because even he saw what a contradictory mess he had made of the Quran over the short span of just 23 years, a good rule of thumb is to conclude that all of the the earlier more peaceful "recitations" are thrown out, for the later suras in which Muhammad calls his followers to fight and slay non-Muslims, after Muhammad suffered what might well have been a psychotic break. Perhaps sparked by loosing Khadijah.


My friend, as you can see it is your argument that is not just illogical, but absolutely ridiculous.


Nor, or course would I ever consider anything about the false prophet Muhammad and his cult "reliable". As the video you cited in your first post points out, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that any of it existed that dates to prior to the 690s.



No it means he saw what a horrifically contradictory mess he had made of his recitations over the short span of just 23 years. And I've no doubt he would have tried to get away with it if the Quraish hadn't kept pointing out to his contraditions and that he was rehashing "tales of the ancients", so he was compelled to arrange another "revelation" from his alter-ego "Allah", through which he pretended he was told to institute the doctrine of substitution.



If Muhammad was other than a false prophet then the prophets and witnesses in the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants for 3500 years, were false.


Not at all. Muhammad realized what a mess he and his alter-ego "Allah" made in his satanic recitations, over the short span of just 23 years. The only weird thing to me, is that even you can't see that.

Response: It means your lies cannot be supported since your whole claim that verses were abrogated is based on Muhammad's words. that means you believe him to be telling the truth, then you deny he is a Prophet. That would mean he is not truthful. Your logic contradicts, thus your argument of abrogation fails. Try again.