2:106
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof.
16:101
And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.
So they all agree? When I was a Muslim I never considered the "peaceful verses" abrogated.
Well it's true that not everyone knows all about their own faith. When I was a Catholic I believed (wrongly) that the Immaculate Conception was about Jesus' conception.
However it's a standard of Islamic belief, else you'd have to explain how these two very conflicting verses can be reconciled.
Who are "they"? You act as if Muslims are some monolithic block that agree 100% on the intricacies of abrogation and what has been abrogated.
Well Moslem, by the very fact we're using a collective noun stands for something. I agree that there's some variation within that. There is however some commonality, else the term would be meaningless.
There is just as much diversity of opinion on issues of Quranic exegesis among Muslims as there is divergence of opinion on Biblical exegesis among Christians. Some Muslims are Quran only and reject the hadith, some Muslims tend to use a more allegorical manner of interpretation, some Muslims are fundamentalist extremists, some Muslims are liberals, some Muslims are conservatives, etc.
Show me Islamic exegesis that there's been no abrogation.
I'm not so sure all the Muslims who support the death of apostates (and that's certainly not all Muslims) necessarily believe the verse calling for "no compulsion in religion" to have been abrogated. They just justify to themselves that killing apostates isn't actually "compulsion in religion". More tortured logic if anything.
So calling for someone's death unless they change faith is not a
compulsion?
Why's it 'tortured logic'?
The fact that Moslems imposed a tax and special rules on Christians and Jews is another 'compulsion' based on religion.
You know that Moslems aren't supposed to take non-Moslems even as close friends?
Translations of the Qur'an, Chapter 5:
AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD)
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
Now, if you think that this verse is taken out of context, let's hear from some Moslem experts
"Question: Does not brotherhood extend to all of mankind because it is established that Aadam was the forefather of everyone?
Response: This is not so. There is no doubt that everyone is from the offspring of Aadam but we do not say, "This is my brother," when referring to a disbeliever meaning by that within the brotherhood of man. We can only refer to him as brother when there is a relationship by descent or lineage.
MISCELLANEOUS \ Muslim Minorities \ The brotherhood of man
Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir explained that "believers that fear for their safety from the unbelievers... are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly".
Taqiyya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where Christians teach love thy neighbour, Islam does not.
