Note my argument, Islam do not condone suicide-in-general as committed by the depressive and suicide prone people. However sacrificing one live [martyrdom] for the cause of Allah is not considered suicide-in-general but something of merit.
This is what Islamic extremists teach, not the religion of Islam. Suicide and killing innocent people are forbidden in Islam, so suicide attacks can't possibly be acceptable.
Depends on lying under which circumstances. Note I stated many are ignorant of the central message and commands of Allah in the Quran to be antagonistic to non-Muslims.
My point was for those who are aware to the need for contempt towards non-Muslims as condone by Allah, they are likely to pretend, thus my reference to Taqiyyah, thus lying in some cases.
There is only one circumstance and that circumstance is well defined in the Qur'an as to when a lie is permissible.
Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:
"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)
"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)
If you do not separate Islamism from Islam, then you should be condemning the part where Islam [verses] contribute to Islamism. But you don't.
The verses aren't the problem, it's the individuals who alter them from their original course or meaning that are the problem. Christian extremists also twist and distort the scriptures to justify committing atrocities.
Do you feel that I should also be condemning the Bible verses that extremists or Christian terrorist organizations have used their actions?
Note I have argued strongly evil and violent acts by Christians on their own freewill has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Note my argument;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity
So far you have not countered the above argument effectively.
You mean I haven't countered the above to your impossible standards.
The Quran is not a historical book.
The Qur'an was written 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life. Some verses answered specific questions at a specific time or during a specific historical event such as a battle. Many verses have specific messages intended for specific people, while others give general guidelines to be used for future generations. So when you read the Qur’an it's important to understand what was happening at the time that resulted in a particular verse to be revealed to Muhammad.
The Bible is similar in the fact that each book was written to a specific audience, who were facing specific circumstances, at a specific point in time. The Bible wasn't written to Christians living in the year 2019, but it was written for us in 2019.
Historical context means everything when trying to understand and properly interpret religious texts. You are obviously having a difficult time in doing this in regards to the Qur'an, and this is why I suggested you take some courses in Islamic Studies in the other thread.
In the context of the whole of the Quran, the disbelievers are a threat to Islam as perfected to Muslims [5:3].
Here is Qur'an 5:3 in full context:
Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.
It's ironic that you would use this verse to defend your position that the the Qur'an is saying that disbelievers are a threat to Islam.
This verse was supposedly revealed to Muhammad when Islam had finally developed into a complete way of life for Muslims and is referred to as the Ikmal al-Din or
"perfection of the religion" in English. This verse says that non-Muslims had now reached a point of no hope in destroying Islam and it tells Muslims that they no longer needed to fear non-Muslims; they should only fear God. This verse is considered by most Muslims to be the final verse revealed to Muhammad and in essence it tells Muslims that non-Muslims are no longer a treat to them which is the exact opposite of what you believe it's saying.
Which brings us to this:
Note whatever that has inkling of a peaceful gesture to non-Muslims in any verse in the Quran they are all subsequently abrogated by the contemptuous verses against non-Muslims.
Fact is, there is a chronological order the Quranic verses were delivered to Muhammad over 23 years. The abrogation of the 'no compulsion' is from the evil and violent contents and contexts of the later verses of the Quran.
All these stand-alone verse are abrogated by later verses which are evil and violent.
You'll need to read the Quran chronologically
Since Qur'an 5:3 is considered to be the final revelation to Muhammad, using your own theory of abrogation and how the verses revealed later in Muhammad's life override previous ones, the war between Muslims and non-Muslims is over. That verse tells Muslims that non-Muslims have lost hope in the fight against Islam and that Muslims no longer need to fear them.
Btw, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone to judge those Muslims who adopt these divine principles
as wrong?
Do you believe we should ignore them? Why shouldn't we judge extremists and point out how they are morally wrong in their interpretations? Should we just allow their perverted ideologies spread without consequence?
Note the Quran are full of stories "plagiarized" from the Bible with reference to incidents that happened 3000++ years ago re Torah and 600++ re Gospels.
Why are these historical stories kept in the Quran?
In Islam these stories are important in telling how the Muslim faith came into existence.
Then why do you insist, "I will say that Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."
Christian extremists alter verses from the Bible from their original course or meaning to justify their actions, therefore; Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.
IS is a convenient reference but my main point is to the pool of 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims who will naturally be inclined to the evil and violent laden verses.
This mythical pool of yours is very weak. Since the inception of Islam, less than 1% of Muslims have participated in violent jihad. Today fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are doing so and there is no evidence that this number is presently increasing. If there are 320 million evil prone Muslims, why aren't there more of them acting out violently towards non-Muslims since this is what you believe the Qur'an commands Muslims to do? There isn't even 1% of your mythical 320 million doing this.
It is critical that humanity recognize the above facts and act according. This is what Bale had advised but he did not offer any specific solutions nor dig deeper into the root causes. Refer to the "conclusion" of his article;
Denying the Link between Islamist Ideology and Jihadist Terrorism: “Political Correctness” and the Undermining of Counterterrorism | Bale | Perspectives on Terrorism
This brings us to the real nub of the problem: the longer that key Western elites persist in mistakenly denying the central role played by Islamist interpretations of Islam in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks, the less likely they will be able to prevent future attacks from this quarter.
Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism,
and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.[75]
Nor will they be able to respond effectively to the stealthy “civilization jihad” being waged by certain Islamist organizations that have abandoned violence for tactical reasons, albeit only to pursue their intrinsically anti-democratic agendas via seemingly legal means.
It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.
Unless that situation changes dramatically, which means that a multitude of blatantly false but au courant “politically correct” notions will have to be jettisoned,
the United States and its democratic allies will never be able to develop effective policies or strategies to cope with their extremist Muslim enemies,
whether they are armed jihadists or subversive “stealth” Islamists who have concluded that resorting to violence is not the best way, at least at the moment, to pursue their Islamic supremacist objectives.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being said in that article.
Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.
The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Until you can can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and extremism, you will continue to be in error.
It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.
Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.
Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what Islam teaches. 
Really? Never heard that one! 
